LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  Of 
CALIFORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


* 


Univ.  of 


Withdrawn 


Univ.  of 

Withdrawn 


E  NA'  [ON A;. 


AN  D  SYST  EM 


1785-1820 


BY 

PAYSON  JACKSON  TREAT,  PH.  D. 

Assistant  Professor  of  History  Leland  Stanford 
Junior  University 


NEW  YORK 

E.  B.  TREAT  &  COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS 

1910 


COPYRIGHT,  1910,  BY 
E.  B.  TREAT  &  COMPANY 


TO  MY 
FA THER 


r*V 
• 


PREFACE 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  study  to  show  how  the 
national  public  lands  passed  into  private  ownership 
during  the  first  great  period  of  our  land  system.  It 
is  concerned,  therefore,  only  with  the  disposal  of  the 
lands  by  the  nation,  it  does  not  presume  to  discuss 
the  uses  to  which  the  lands  were  put.  It  considers 
the  land  grants  for  education,  for  example,  merely 
as  a  way  in  which  great  areas  passed  from  the  public 
domain  to  the  control  of  the  States;  it  does  not 
work  out  the  management  of  those  grants.  In 
short,  it  deals  with  the  origin  of  the  public  domain 
and  with  every  form  of  disposition  which  was  in  use 
before  1820. 

Some  explanation  may  be  necessary  for  the 
choice  of  1820  as  the  termination  of  this  study.  That 
date  marks  the  close  of  the  first  great  period  in  the 
history  of  the  national  land  system.  Between  1776 
and  1820  the  public  domain  had  been  formed,  the 
land  system  had  been  organized,  the  granting  of 
land  for  education  and  military  services  had  been 
introduced,  and  grants  for  internal  improvements 
had  been  discussed,  while  the  methods  for  confirm- 
ing foreign  titles  had  been  well  worked  out.  But 
especially  it  was  the  period  of  the  credit  system, 
the  operation  of  which  well  deserves  consideration. 
There  may  be  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
other  periods  into  which  a  study  of  the  land  system 


PREFACE 

may  be  divided.  I  would  have  the  second  end  with 
the  Preemption  Act  of  1841,  the  third  with  the 
Homestead  Act  of  1862,  and  the  fourth  with  the 
rise  of  the  Conservation  Movement,  which  certainly 
marks  a  new  period  in  our  land  history. 

John  Fiske  has  told  us  that  "questions  about 
public  lands  are  often  regarded  as  the  driest  of 
historical  deadwood.  Discussions  about  them  in 
newspapers  and  magazines  belong  to  the  class  of 
articles  which  the  general  reader  usually  skips.  Yet 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  the  philosophy  of  history 
wrapped  up  in  this  subject."  And  he  was  very  near 
the  truth.  A  transaction  with  the  land  office  was  a 
very  unromantic  performance,  and  yet  it  was  of 
great  importance  in  the  life  of  the  settler.  And  if 
the  subject  is  dull  in  itself  it  is  closely  related  to 
some  of  the  most  interesting  phases  of  our  history. 
Without  some  knowledge  of  the  land  system  a 
study  of  the  westward  movement  would  be  only 
superficial,  and  a  large  part  of  the  history  of  the 
West  must  be  written  in  terms  of  land. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  acknowledge  here  my  indebted- 
ness to  Professor  Max  Farrand,  of  Yale  Univer- 
sity, who  first  called  my  attention  to  the  importance 
of  this  subject,  and  to  my  colleagues,  Professor  E. 
D.  Adams  and  Professor  H.  E.  Bolton,  who  have 
offered  valuable  suggestions.  The  map  of  the  In- 
dian Cessions  was  based  on  the  excellent  collection 
in  the  Eighteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of 
Ethnology. 

PAYSON  J.  TREAT. 
August  2,  1910. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PUBLIC  DOMAIN  .  .  1 
A  national  government  did  not  imply  a  national 
land  system — The  charter  claims  of  the  colonies — 
Objections  raised  by  the  non-claimant  states — • 
Confusion  of  boundary  lines — Congress  refused  to 
set  limits  to  the  states — Position  taken  by  Mary- 
land— New  York  solved  the  problem  by  ceding  her 
western  lands — The  other  claimant  states  followed 
— The  public  domain  formed — Its  political  signifi- 
cance— Stipulations  contained  in  the  deeds — Ces- 
sions of  North  Carolina  and  Georgia  made  after 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  Summary  of  the 


II.  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FEDERAL  LAND  SYSTEM  .  15 
The  lands  considered  a  source  of  revenue — Indian 
title  delayed  plans  for  disposal — Pelatiah  Webster 
presented  a  plan  containing  many  features  of  the 
later  Ordinance — Connecticut  insisted  upon  the 
township  system1 — The  Army  plan.  The  Finan- 
ciers' plan — The  committee  of  1784 — New  England 
and  Southern  land  systems  compared — Proposed 
land  ordinance  of  1784  —  Recommendations  of 
Washington — New  Committee  of  1785 — Grayson's 
account  of  their  deliberations — Ordinance  amended 
and  passed — Influence  of  Timothy  Pickering — Or- 
dinance of  1785  a  compromise  between  the  two  sec- 
tional land  systems. 

III.     LAND     SALES     UNDER     THE     CONFEDERATION, 

1787-1789  41 

.  Thomas  Hutchins  appointed  Geographer — The  first 
surveys — The  Ordinance  amended — First  sales  of 
public  lands — Reasons  for  small  sales — Indian 
hostilities  northwest  of  the  Ohio — Troops  sent  to 


viii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

drive  out  unauthorized  settlers — Later  changes  in 
the  Ordinance — Sales  to  Companies — Ohio  company 
formed — Services  of  the  Reverend  Manasseh  Cut- 
ler— Contracts  signed  for  sales  to  the  Ohio  and 
the  Scioto  companies — Petitions  from  Symmes, 
Flint  and  Parker,  and  George  Morgan  for  per- 
mission to  purchase  lands — The  Symmes'  purchase 
— Difficulties  encountered  by  the  Ohio  Company — 
Relief  sought — Congress  amends  terms  of  contract 
— Later  history  of  the  Scioto  Company — Questions 
arising  from  Symmes'  purchase — Terms  amended — 
Dispute  over  boundaries — Preemption  granted  to 
settlers — Summary  of  sales  to  companies — Pennsyl- 
vania purchases  the  "  triangle." 

IV.     THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF    THE    LAND    SYSTEM, 

1789-1800  ... 66 

No  general  land  legislation  between  1789  and  1796 
— Debates  in  the  First  Congress — Hamilton's  Re- 
port— Based  on  the  financial  demands  of  the  time — 
Debate  during  Third  Session — No  action  until  1796 
— Attempt  to  bribe  members  of  Congress — Indian 
relations  in  the  Northwest — Wayne's  victory  and  the 
Greeneville  Treaty — Land  Act  of  1796 — Develop- 
ment of  land  laws,  1785-1796 — System  of  rectangu- 
lar surveys  firmly  established — Failure  to  provide 
funds  for  surveys — Small  sales  under  the  act — 
Surveys  delayed — W.  H.  Harrison  elected  first  dele- 
gate from  Northwest  Territory — Land  act  amended 
in  1800 — Four  land  offices  established — Credit 
period  extended. 

V.  THE  ABOLITION  OF  THE  CREDIT  SYSTEM  .  .  101 
Act  of  1800  in  operation — Credit  system  bound  to 
be  disastrous — First  sales  under  the  act — Westward 
movement  not  confined  to  public  lands — Indian  ces- 
sions and  surveys  must  precede  land  sales — Method 
of  computing  interest  charges  altered — Special 
terms  allowed  Dufour  and  associates — Ohio  Enab- 
ling Act — Its  land  grants  for  education  became  pre- 
cedents— First  act  for  sale  of  lands  in  Southwest — 
Proposals  to  amend  general  system — Gallatin  urged 


CONTENTS  ix 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

reduction  in  size  of  tracts  and  in  price,  and  aboli- 
tion of  credit,  1804 — Act  for  sale  of  lands  in  Indiana 
Territory — Quarter  section  tracts — Other  altera-i 
tions  in  the  system — First  land  laws  for  Louisiana 
Purchase — Strict  provisions — Standing  committee 
on  public  lands  appointed  in  House — Two  reports 
against  credit  system,  1806 — First  relief  act  post- 
poning forfeitures,  1806 — Effect  of  commercial  de- 
pression on  credit  system — Morrow  recommended 
reduction  in  price  and  abolition  of  credit,  1809 — 
First  general  extension  of  credit,  1809 — Act  of 
1810 — Two  reports  against  the  system,  1811 — Re- 
lief acts  of  1812 — Establishment  of  the  General 
Land  Office,  1812— Annual  relief  acts,  1813-1820— 
Partial  introduction  of  eighty  acre  tracts — Senate 
passed  bill  abolishing  credit,  1819 — Act  of  1820 — 
Credit  abolished,  price  reduced,  eighty  acre  tracts 
— Acts  extending  the  credit  system. 

VI.  CONGRESS  AND  THE  LAND  DEBTORS  .  .  .  144 
Why  preemptions  or  donations  were  not 'granted — 
Auction  system  retained — Relief  for  creditors  ad- 
vocated— Question  as  to  method  of  relief — Plans 
proposed — Act  of  1821:  relinquishment,  remission 
of  accrued  interest,  discount  for  cash,  extension  of 
credit— Acts  of  1824,  1828,  1830,  1831,  1832— Opera- 
tion of  the  relief  laws — Their  hesitating  ineffective- 
ness— Changing  attitude  of  Congress — Revenue 
policy  no  longer  dominant — Growing  political  in- 
fluence of  the  West 

VII.  THE  EXTENSION  OF  THE  LAND  SYSTEM  .  .  162 
Three  steps  in  process  of  opening  land  to  settle- 
ment: extinguishment  of  Indian  title,  completion 
of  surveys,  proclamation  of  sales — Surveys  delayed 
by  private  land  claims — The  squatters — Indian 
treaties  in.  Northwest — Early  surveys  and  sales — 
Under  act  of  1796 — Indian  cessions  in  Southwest 
— First  sales  in  Mississippi  Territory — Surveys  and 
sales  in  Indiana,  Illinois  and  Michigan — Surveys 
west  of  the  Mississippi — Indian  cessions,  1805-1814 
— New  land  offices  established — Important  cessions 


x  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

in  Alabama — Sale  of  reserves — First  land  sales  in 
Missouri  and  Michigan  territories. 

VIII.     THE    SYSTEM   OP   SURVEYS     ......     179 

The  surveys  were  the  most  important  provision  of 

,  the  Ordinance  of   1785 — An  application  of  a  well 

understood  system — Not  an  "  invention "  of  Mr. 
Jefferson — Method  of  surveying  under  Ordinance 
of  1785 — Six  distinct  surveying  areas  in  Ohio— 
Mansfield  perfects  combination  of  "  Principal  Meri- 
dians "  and  .base  lines — The  Principal  Meridians  in 
the  Northwest  described — Frequent  base  lines  and 
guide  meridians  necessary — Several  Principal  Meri- 
dians in  the  old  Southwest — Surveying  methods  in 
1817 — Errors  in  surveys — Administration  of  sur- 
veys— Later  developments. 

IX.  THE  CONFIRMATION  OF  FOREIGN  TITLES  .  .  1Q8 
The  problem — Foreign  titles  in  the  Northwest — 
Resolutions  of  the  Old  Congress — Early  attempt 
to  confirm  titles — Act  of  1791 — Boards  of  Commis- 
sioners introduced  by  act  of  1803 — Commissioners 
appointed  for  Vincennes,  Kaskaskia,  and  Detroit — 
Reports  of  Commissioners — Congressional  action — 
Frauds  at  Kaskaskia — Confirmations  at  Vincennes 
— Re-opening  of  confirmations  at  Kaskaskia — Con- 
firmations at  Detroit,  Green  Bay,  and  Prairie  du 
Chien — Discussion  of  methods  of  investigating 
foreign  titles — Effect  on  general  land  system. 

X.     LAND  GRANTS  FOR  MILITARY  AND  NAVAL  SERV- 
ICES        230 

Colonial  precedents — Royal  Proclamation  of  1763 — 
Revolutionary  bounties:  land  offered  to  foreign  de- 
serters and  to  Continental  troops — Bounties  offered 
by  the  States — Plans  for  satisfying  Continental 
bounties — Military  reserves  authorized — Act  of 
1796 — Attempt  to  expedite  location  of  warrants — 
Reserves  abandoned,  1830 — Undesirable  features  of 
bounties — Offered  for  war  of  1812 — Reserves  estab- 
lished— Attempts  to  change  bounty  laws — Canadian 
Volunteers — Petition  of  Abigail  OTlyng— Objec- 
tions to  reserves — Abandoned  in  1842 — Bounties 


CONTENTS  xi 

CHAPTEB  PAGE 

for  Mexican  War — General  bounty  acts  of  1850, 
1852,  1855  and  1856 — Reasons  for  later  liberal  policy 
— Criticism  of  bounty  grants. 

XI.     LAND  GRANTS  FOR  EDUCATION 263 

A  study  of  origins — Omission  of  grants  in  plan 
of  1784 — Introduced  in  1785  from  New  England 
land  system — Omitted  in  early  acts  of  Congress — • 
Ohio  Enabling  Act,  1802 — A  precedent  for  later 
acts — Land  grants  to  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  and 
Missouri — Later  developments — Grants  for  higher 
education — Grants  for  asylums  for  deaf  and  dumb 
— Grants  for  religious  purposes — Summary  of 
period. 

XII.     SPECIAL   GRANTS   OF   LAND,   PUBLIC   AND   PRI- 
VATE      .        . 286 

Canadian  Volunteers  and  Refugees — Christian  In- 
dians in  Ohio — A.  H.  Dohrman,  Isaac  Zane,  George 
Ash,  J.  J.  Dufour,  General  La  Fayette,  Lewis  and 
Clark,  Leitensdorfer — Monroe's  veto  of  a  religious 
grant — Earthquake  sufferers — Vine  and  Olive 
Society — Special  grants  for  public  purposes. 

XIII.     THE  SATISFACTION  OF  THE  CONDITIONS  IN  THE 

DEEDS  OF  CESSION,  1784-1802  ....  319 
THE  CONNECTICUT  RESERVE — THE  VIRGINIA  MILI- 
TARY RESERVE  —  Origin  —  Virginia  Revolutionary 
bounties — Question  concerning  the  western  bound- 
ary or  reserve — Ludlow  and  Roberts'  lines — Boun- 
ties for  state  troops  allowed — Frequent  acts  extend- 
ing period  for  satisfaction — Estimate  of  quantity 
of  land  granted  for  Virginia  bounties.  THE  NORTH 
CAROLINA  CESSION — Delay  in  completing  cession — 
Conditions  in  the  deed — Revolutionary  bounties — 
Admission  of  Tennessee — Act  of  1806 — The  Congres- 
sional Line — Acts  of  1842  and  1846— THE  YAZOO 
LAND  CLAIMS — Western  lands  of  Georgia — Land 
sales  to  companies,  1789,  1795 — The  Georgia  cession 
— Satisfaction  of  private  land  claims — Fletcher  v. 
Peck — Other  claims. 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAOX 

XIV.      THE  EARLY  LAND  SYSTEM  AND  THE  WESTWARD 

MOVEMENT 370 

Present  recognition  of  economic  and  social  forces 
in  American  history — Westward  movement  under 
way  before  origin  of  public  domain — Before  1820 
only  portion  of  western  people  located  on  public 
lands — Ordinance  of  1785 — Act  of  1796 — Act  of 
1800 — Public  lands  administered  as  a  source  of 
revenue — The  credit  system — Settlers  desire  pre- 
emption— Arguments  advanced — Summary  of  pre- 
emption laws — Changing  conception  of  object  of 
land  legislation — Developments  after  1820. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 391 

APPENDIX 

1  Area    of    the    state    cessions 395 

2  Ordinance   of    1785 395 

3  Extension   of  the   land  system — amount  of  land 

surveyed    and    sold 401 

4  Distances    between    the    land    offices     ....  402 

5  Estimated    area    of    Indian    cessions     ....  404 

6  Land    sales    by   land   offices,    1800-1807      ...  406 

7  Land  sales  1808-1814 407 

8  Land  sales  1815-1820 408 

9  Lands  sold,  receipts  and  balances  unpaid     .      .     410 


UST   OF    MAPS 

PACK 

1.  Indian  Cessions,   1785-1820 164 

2.  Land   Offices,    1821 174 

3.  Diagrams  showing  subdivisions  of  public  lands      .  181 

4.  Ohio,  showing  land  divisions 185 

5.  Tennessee  and  Mississippi  Territory,  showing,  the 

Congressional  Line  and  the  Yazoo  claims    .      .  348 


THE    NATIONAL  LAND    SYSTEM 


The  National  Land   System 

CHAPTER  I 

THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PUBLIC   DOMAIN 

A  study  of  the  American  Land  System  should  of 
necessity  commence  with  some  discussion  of  the 
origin  of  the  public  domain.  Before  the  Revolution 
the  various  colonies  had  for  years  been  engaged  in 
the  disposal  of  land  and  several  distinct  systems  had 
been  developed  based  upon  differing  physical  and 
economic  conditions,  but  no  uniform  system  could, 
under  the  circumstances,  be  worked  out.  Nor  did 
the  establishment  of  a  central  government  necessar- 
ily mean  that  a  national  land  system  could  be  in- 
augurated. The  very  nature  of  the  loose  defensive 
union  of  the  thirteen  colonies  precluded  any  grant 
of  power  to  a  central  legislature  over  the  lands 
within  the  states,  while  at  the  commencement  of 
the  Revolution  the  idea  of  national  lands  outside 
the  boundaries  of  the  states  had  not  developed. 
Under  these  circumstances  there  could  be  no  field 
for  national  land  legislation.  At  first  the  object  of 
the  struggling  patriots  was  to  assert  as  large  terri- 
torial claims  as  possible  for  the  United  Colonies  so 
that  when  independence  was  achieved  the  new 
nation  would  possess  an  extensive  area.  This  could 


£  1HE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

be  easily  done  because  six  of  the  colonies  had  sea  to 
sea  claims  based  on  their  ancient  charters.  These 
parchments  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Vir- 
ginia, North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia 
were  considered  good  against  England  for  the  land 
as  far  west  as  the  Mississippi,  while  New  York  had 
a  supporting  claim,  as  suzerain  of  the  Iroquois  In- 
dians, to  the  country  west  of  the  Delaware  River. 
Franklin's  draft  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
of  May  10,  1775,  shows  that  at  that  time  the  charter 
claims  of  these  colonies  were  not  contested. 

Bhit  soon  this  first  assertion  was  questioned.  Six 
of  the  states  had  very  definite  boundaries  and  they 
could  present  no  charter  claims  to  the  rich  lands  be- 
yond the  Alleghanies.  They  then  believed  that,  even 
should  the  western  lands  be  held  against  England 
as  parts  of  the  states,  nevertheless  Congress  should 
have  the  power  to  limit  the  boundaries  of  the  great 
states,  and  to  erect  new  colonies.  This  was  shown 
in  the  Dickinson  draft  of  the  Articles  of  Confeder- 
ation of  July  12, 1776,  but  the  clause  was  struck  out 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  From  this  arose  a 
number  of  questions  regarding  the  ownership  of 
the  lands  beyond  the  Alleghanies  which  developed 
into  one  of  the  most  perplexing  domestic  problems 
confronting  the  new  nation,  and  one  which  had  to 
be  settled  wisely  and  well. 

First  came  the  question,  do  the  lands  beyond  the 
mountains  belong  to  the  claimant  states  under  their 
charters  or  to  the  United  States  as  the  result  of  a 
successful  revolution?  Against  charter  claims  were 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PUBLIC    DOMAIN       3 

cited  the  Royal  Proclamation  of  1763,1  which  re- 
stricted the  right  of  the  colonies  to  grant  lands  west 
of  the  headwaters  of  streams  flowing  into  the  Atlan- 
tic, and  the  Quebec  Act  of  1774,  which  attached  the 
country  north  of  the  Ohio  River  to  the  Province  of 
Quebec.  And  before  this  question  was  answered 
there  arose  another :  if  the  lands  belong  to  the  states, 
then  to  which  states,  for  conflicting  claims  had 
already  arisen  under  the  ancient  charters  ? 

It  was  the  presence  of  these  conflicting  claims  in 
the  west  which  made  the  later  public  domain  pos- 
sible. If  the  claims  of  the  various  states  to  the 
western  lands  had  been  well  founded  it  is  doubtful 
if  any  dispute  would  have  arisen.  Virginia  held 
unquestioned  vast  unappropriated  areas  east  of  the 
mountains,  and  Massachusetts  possessed  great 
vacant  tracts  in  Maine.  But  no  state  could  present 
a  claim  to  the  western  lands  which  could  not  be 
questioned,  many  people  thinking  the  Proclamation 
of  1763  and  the  Quebec  Act  limited  all  the  colonies 
to  the  mountains.  In  the  northwest  four  states 
claimed  lands  with  overlapping  bounds,  and  this 
would  present  a  serious  problem  in  boundary 
adjustment  should  the  charter  claims  be  accepted. 

It  seemed  unwise  to  Congress  to  raise  these  ques- 
tions during  the  actual  struggle  with  Great  Britain. 
In  order  to  make  the  position  of  the  United  States 
as  strong  as  possible  it  would  make  use  of  both 

i  Alvord,  The  Genesis  of  the  Proclamation  of  1763,  Mich.  Hist, 
and  Pioneer  Soc.  Collection,  v.  39,  p.  52.  "  The  proclamation,  did 
not  set  western  limits  to  the  colonies,  nor  was  such  the  intention 
of  the  ministry  at  the  time." 


4  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

theories.2  It  would  maintain  the  sea  to  sea  claims 
of  the  states,  and,  should  these  be  denied,  it  would 
claim  the  western  lands  as  successor  to  the  rights 
of  the  King  of  England. 

The  small  states,  with  fixed  boundaries,  early 
questioned  the  territorial  claims  of  the  seven  larger 
ones.  It  was  Maryland  who  persistently  attacked 
the  theory  of  the  state  claims  to  the  west.  Over 
against  it  she  argued  for  a  common  right  and  a  com- 
mon ownership.  At  first  she  would  waive  any  dis- 
cussion of  the  charter  claims  provided  that  Con- 
gress was  authorized  to  fix  the  western  boundaries 
of  the  claimant  states.  This  was  the  position  taken 
by  Dickinson  in  1776  and  Maryland  alone  voted 
for  it  on  October  15,  1777.3  Rhode  Island,  New 
Jersey  and  Delaware  opposed  the  land  claims,  but 
on  financial  grounds,  for  they  were  willing  that  the 
sovereignty  over  the  lands  should  be  vested  in  the 
claimant  states  provided  the  lands  themselves  pass 
to  the  United  States.4  In  spite  of  their  protests  a 
clause  was  added  to  the  proposed  Articles  of  Con- 
federation, on  October  27,  1777,  which,  after  set- 
ting up  a  Court  of  Commissioners  to  determine  dis- 
puted boundary  claims,  provided  also  "  that  no  state 
shall  be  deprived  of  territory  for  the  benefit  of  the 
United  States.5 

Although  defeated  in  Congress  the  small  states 
did  not  give  up  the  fight.  In  1778  Rhode  Island  and 
New  Jersey  presented  amendments  to  the  proposed 

tfSee  Thompson  Papers,  N.  Y.     Historical  Col.  1878,  109-141. 
sj.  IX.,  807.  *  Adams,   33.  e  j.    IX.,   843. 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PUBLIC    DOMAIN       5 

Articles  of  Confederation  which  would  turn  all  the 
crown  lands  within  the  states  over  to  the  United 
States,  while  the  sovereignty  would  remain  in  the 
states6.  These  amendments  were  overwhelmingly 
defeated  and  it  was  well  that  such  was  the  case  for 
national  sovereignty  as  well  as  common  ownership 
of  the  western  lands  was.  necessary.  It  was  the 
great  service  of  Maryland  to  render  this  possible. 

The  part  she  played  in  causing  the  claimant 
states  to  cede  their  western  lands  need  not  be  de- 
tailed here.7  Maintaining  that  they  had  "  not  the 
least  shadow  of  exclusive  right,"  and  that  the  unset- 
tled country,  "  if  wrested  from  the  common  enemy 
by  the  blood  and  treasure  of  the  thirteen  states, 
should  be  considered  as  common  property,"8  sub- 
ject to  the  control  of  Congress,  she  refused  to  ratify 
the  Articles  of  Confederaton  until  the  disputed 
question  was  in  some  way  settled.  Especially  did 
she  fear  the  financial  and  political  benefits  accruing 
to  Virginia  from  her  vast  claimed  lands. 

Even  if  the  position  taken  by  Maryland  and  the 
other  non-claimant  states  were  correct  it  was  unwise 
to  insist  upon  it  in  opposition  to  the  opinions  of 
seven  of  the  more  powerful  states.  A  denial  of 
charter  claims  or  an  enforced  curtailment  of  them 
would  have  been  disastrous  in  those  days  of  state 
jealousies.  A  much  more  expedient  proposition 
was  now  suggested,  one  which  avoided  all  discussion 

«  J.  XI.,  639,  650.  T  See  Adams. 

8  Instruction  to   Delegates   in   Congress.      Dec.   15,    1778.      Read 
May  21,  1779.     J.  XIV.,  619-622. 


6  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

of  territorial  claims  and  aimed  at  the  cession  of  the 
disputed  land  to  the  nation  for  the  common  good. 
An  early  proposal  for  cessions  of  western  lands  by 
the  states  was  made  by  the  Committee  on  Finance 
on  September  19,  1778,°  and  a  year  later  Virginia 
and  the  other  states  were  urged  to  cease  grant- 
ing western  lands  during  the  continuance  of  the 
war. 

This  proved  to  be  a  real  solution  of  the  problem. 
New  York  offered  to  cede  her  western  lands,  with- 
out reserve,  in  1780.  Virginia  made  a  first,  but  un- 
satisfactory, offer  in  January,  1781,  and  a  month 
later  Maryand  ratified  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion. Between  1782  and  1802  the  seven  claimant 
states  made  cessions  of  their  western  lands,  and  by 
the  latter  date  the  public  domain  covered  all  the 
territory  between  the  Alleghanies  and  the  Missis- 
sippi, with  the  exception  of  Kentucky,  which  was 
reserved  by  Virginia  and  later  erected  as  a  state, 
and  of  the  Connecticut  Reserve  in  Ohio.  In  bring- 
ing about  these  cessions  the  influence  of  Maryland 
was  negative  while  that  of  New  York  was  positive. 
Both  states  deserve  great  credit.10 

With  these  cessions  the  public  domain  was 
formed.  From  a  political  point  of  view  they  were 
most  important.  They  were  a  pre-requisite  to  the 

»J.  XII.,  931. 

10  For  the  cessions  see  Adams,  Maryland's  Influence  upon  Land 
Cessions  to  the  United  States.  J.  H.  Univ.  Studies,  3d  series. 
Sato,  History  of  the  Land  Question  in  the  United  States.  J.  H. 
Univ.  Studies,  4th  series.  Welling,  The  Land  Politics  of  the  United 
States.  Papers  of  the  N.  Y.  Hist  Society,  1888. 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PUBLIC    DOMAIN       7 

completion  of  the  Confederation,  although  the  first 
one  was  not  perfected  until  twenty  months  after 
the  ratification  of  Maryland.  With  them  vanished 
the  fear  of  any  enormous  development  in  wealth 
and  power  on  the  part  of  the  favored  states,  and  . 
the  settlement  of  conflicting  boundary  lines  was 
avoided.  The  Congress  of  the  Confederation  ex- 
ceeded its  powers  in  accepting  them  and  in  pro- 
viding a  government  for  the  lands  which  they  cov- 
ered. With  the  possession  of  a  public  domain,  a 
"  common  estate,"  came  a  real  bond  of  union  in  the 
critical  period  of  the  republic. 

With  the  exception  of  the  Connecticut  Reserve 
all  the  cessions  were  of  territory  and  jurisdiction. 
New  York  offered  to  cede  soil  and  jurisdiction  or 
to  retain  all  or  part  of  the  jurisdiction.  Connecti- 
cut, in  her  offer  of  October  10,  1780,  proposed  to 
cede  the  soil  but  retain  the  jurisdiction.  This  would 
have  proven  acceptable  to  some  of  the  states,  and 
even  Alexander  Hamilton  had  agreed  that  the 
jurisdiction  over  the  land  should  remain  in  the 
states.11 

Such  cessions  of  territory  would  have  created  a 
public  domain,  but  the  controversy  which  would 
have  arisen  over  the  conflicting  claims  to  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  northwest  .might  have  wrecked  the  infant 
nation.  Maryland  feared  the  political  power  which 
so  large  an  extent  of  authority  would  give  the  claim- 
ant states.  It  is  easy  to  understand  how  perfect  a 
solution  was  found  when  unquestioned  cessions  of 

11  Hamilton  Works,  I.,  262. 


8  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

soil  and  jurisdiction  were  effected.  Controversies 
between  the  states  were  quieted,  the  central  govern- 
ment gained  political  and  financial  strength,  and  a 
uniform  system  for  the  control  and  disposal  of  the 
western  lands  was  rendered  possible.12 

Of  the  seven  deeds  of  cession  three  were  without 
conditions  of  any  kind  while  four  contained  stipu- 
lations which  are  more  carefully  discussed  in  an- 
other chapter.13  New  York  defined  her  own  limits 
and  ceded  her  right  to  the  lands  northward  and 
westward  of  these  boundaries,  without  condition  as 
to  disposition.  Virginia  ceded  all  right,  title  and 
claim  "  to  the  territory  or  tract  of  country  within 
the  limits  of  the  Virginia  charter  "  lying  northwest 
of  the  Ohio  River.  No  mention  was  made  of  the 
claim  of  Virginia  to  Kentucky,  although  the  first 
offer  of  1781  had  included  a  provision  that  this  ter- 
ritory should  be  guaranteed  to  Virginia.  In  1783 
Congress  had  refused  to  make  such  a  guarantee.14 

12  The  importance  of  the  fact  that  the  first  cessions  were  of 
disputed  claims  should  be  noted  here.  Virginia,  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania, and  Massachusetts  all  retained  unoccupied  land  which 
they  continued  to  dispose  for  some  years.  At  a  later  period 
Massachusetts  was  accused  of  selfishness  in  not  ceding  her  un- 
appropriated lands  in  Maine.  Such  a  charge  is  not  to  the  point. 
These  lands  were  never  "  crown  lands "  in  the  sense  of  the  term 
as  used  after  1763.  No  other  state  could  lay  claim  to  them,  and 
although  a  cession  of  them  to  the  United  States  would  have 
added  strength  to  the  nation  it  was  not  seriously  demanded  nor 
expected.  The  lands  ceded  later  by  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia  were  considered  crown  lands  according  to  the  Pro- 
clamation of  1763. 

is  Donaldson,  65-82  for  deeds ;  82-86  for  reservations,  also  see 
Chap.  13. 

"  J.   IV.,  265. 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PUBLIC    DOMAIN       9 

Virginia  incorporated  certain  conditions  in  her  deed 
of  1784.  The  territory  ceded  should  be  laid  out  into 
states ;  the  expense  incurred  by  Virginia  in  conquer- 
ing and  holding  this  country  should  be  reimbursed 
by  the  general  government;  the  French  inhabit- 
ants and  other  settlers  at  Kaskaskia,  Vincennes 
and  the  neighboring  settlements,  who  had  pro- 
fessed themselves  citizens  of  Virginia,  should  have 
their  possessions  and  titles  confirmed  to  them;  one 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  acres  should  be  laid  off 
for  General  George  Rogers  Clark  and  his  men,  who 
had  conquered  the  Illinois  country  for  Virginia; 
and  lands  should  be  reserved  between  the  Scioto 
and  the  Little  Miami  rivers  for  the  military  boun- 
ties promised  by  Virginia  to  her  troops  upon  con- 
tinental establishment  should  there  be  an  insufficient 
quantity  of  good  land  in  the  tract  already  reserved 
for  them  in  Kentucky.  But  the  most  important 
provision  was  as  follows :  all  lands  in  the  ceded  ter- 
ritory, not  covered  by  the  above  reservations  or  by 
the  bounties  promised  by  Congress  to  the  Continen- 
tal Army  "  shall  be  considered  as  a  common  fund 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  such  of  the  United  States 
as  have  become,  or  shall  become  members  of  the 
Confederation  or  Federal  Alliance  of  the  said 
states,  Virginia  inclusive,  according  to  their  usual 
respective  proportions  in  the  general  charge  and 
expenditure,  and  shall  be  faithfully  and  bona  fide 
disposed  of  for  that  purpose,  and  for  no  other  use 
or  purpose  whatsoever." 

Of  all  the  conditions  made  by  the  states  this  one 


10  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

is  the  most  important.  From  this  time  rarely  could 
a  proposition  to  cede  or  grant  lands  be  made  in 
Congress  without  giving  rise  to  these  inquiries :  is  it 
for  the  common  good  ?  will  it  be  a  bona  fide  disposi- 
tion of  a  common  property?  North  Carolina  and 
Georgia  later  inserted  this  condition  in  their  deeds. 
The  Massachusetts  cession  was  without  reserve. 
It  covered  the  lands  claimed  under  her  charter,  west 
of  the  western  boundary  of  New  York.15 

Connecticut,  however,  was  apparently  less  gen- 
erous, and  she  retained  a  "  western  reserve "  of 
some  3,800,000  acres  which  was  used  as  a  fund  to 
reimburse  sufferers  during  the  raids  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary War,  as  well  as  to  form  a  basis  for  the 
present  school  fund  of  the  state.  In  the  reserve, 
which  extended  for  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles 
west  from  the  Pennsylvania  line,  Connecticut  re- 
is  Massachusetts  and  New  York  both  claimed  the  lands  in  west- 
ern New  York.  In  1784,  a  federal  court  was  appointed,  under  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  to  determine  the  dispute.  Massachu- 
setts claimed  the  land  under  her  charter,  New  York  claimed  it  as 
suzerain  of  the  Iroquois.  The  dispute  was  settled  amicably,  with- 
out reference  to  the  court,  in  1786,  Massachusetts  receiving  the 
soil  and  New  York  the  jurisdiction  of  the  lands  in  question.  This 
compromise  gave  a  more  definite  sanction  to  the  claim  Of  Massa- 
chusetts to  the  western  lands  than  did  the  mere  acceptance  of  the 
Massachusetts  cession  by  Congress,  for  in  the  latter  instance  no 
investigation  of  the  soundness  of  the  claim  was  made.  This  is 
the  more  interesting  because  a  similar  claim  of  Connecticut  for 
land  in  Pennsylvania  was  rejected  by  the  Federal  Commissioners 
at  Trenton  in  1782,  but  the  charter  rights  were  apparently  affirmed 
by  the  acceptance  of  her  cession  by  Congress.  It  should  be  noted 
that  the  disputed  lands  in  Pennsylvania  had  been  actually  granted 
to  Penn  by  charter.  New  York  had  no  such  claim  to  the  lands 
in  the  western  part  of  the  present  state. 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PUBLIC    DOMAIN     11 

tained  both  soil  and  jurisdiction.  In  1797  she 
offered  to  cede  the  jurisdiction  over  the  reserve  and 
in  1800,  after  some  discussion,  Congress  passed 
an  act  of  acceptance.  Thirty  years  later,  when  the 
land  question  assumed  a  sectional  aspect,  Connecti- 
cut and  Massachusetts  were  held  up  as  selfish  com- 
monwealths in  contrast  with  the  magnanimous  con- 
duct of  Virginia  and  the  Southern  states.  In  ex- 
tenuation it  should  be  remembered  that  at  the  time 
of  the  cessions  Connecticut  was  the  only  state  ced- 
ing claims  which  did  not  possess  unoccupied  lands. 
Massachusetts,  New  York,  Virginia,  and  the  South- 
ern states  all  held  within  their  accepted  boundaries 
considerable  areas  of  which  they  were  disposing. 
Her  claims  to  the  Wyoming  country  had  been  de- 
feated and  Pennsylvania  had  profited  thereby,  it 
was  not  unreasonable  for  her  to  endeavor  to  retain 
some  of  her  domain.  These  facts  caused  the  accept- 
ance of  the  cession  of  1786,  a  cession  which  allowed 
her  to  retain  land  already  ceded  to  the  Union  by 
both  New  York  and  Virginia,  and  in  fact  violated 
the  conditions  of  the  Virginia  cession. 

These  cessions  covered  the  territory  of  the  old 
Northwest.  The  United  States  secured  jurisdic- 
tion over  all  but  the  Connecticut  Reserve,  and  over 
this  in  1800.  But  as  has  been  shown,  not  all  this 
country  came  into  the  public  domain  for  the  French 
settlers  and  others  had  claims  which  must  be  con- 
firmed, while  the  military  bounties  of  Virginia  had 
also  to  be  satisfied. 

Under  the  Confederation  only  one  cession  was 


12  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

made  south  of  the  Ohio.  South  Carolina,  in  1787, 
ceded  a  narrow  strip,  twelve  miles  wide,  from  her 
western  limits  to  the  Mississippi,  and  this  cession, 
made  without  condition  or  reserve,  was  "  for  the 
benefit  of  the  said  states."  For  several  years  this 
tiny  bit  of  land  was  entirely  cut  off  from  the  rest 
of  the  public  domain,  until  it  was  annexed  to  the 
North  Carolina  cession  later. 

Some  political  importance  has  been  attached  to 
the  fact  that  five  of  the  state  cessions  were  made 
under  the  Confederation  and  two  under  the  present 
Constitution.  The  Articles  of  Confederation  con- 
ferred no  power  on  Congress  to  receive  or  govern 
any  common  lands,  but  Congress  assumed  the 
power.  In  order  to  remedy  this  omission  the 
new  Constitution  provided  that  "  the  Congress  shall 
have  Power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful 
Rules  and  Regulations  respecting  the  Territory  or 
other  Property  belonging  to  the  United  States." 
From  time  to  time  the  question  was  raised  as  to 
whether  the  Constitution  superceded  the  prior  deeds 
of  cession,  for  if  it  did  the  stipulations  of  the  deeds 
would  not  be  binding.  The  issue  was  never  fairly 
joined  although  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  that 
the  power  of  Congress  over  the  public  lands  was 
"  without  limitation,"  16  and  as  the  grantor  states 
ratified  the  Constitution  it  might  be  assumed  that 
they  waived  their  former  conditions.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  the  conditions  in  the  deeds  were  in  every  case 
faithfully  carried  out,  unless  the  strictest  possible 

i«  U.  S.  v.  Gratiot,  14  Peters,  526. 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PUBLIC    DOMAIN     13 

construction  is  placed  on  the  general  provisions  of 
the  Virginia  and  Georgia  articles. 

In  another  chapter 1T  the  cessions  of  North  Caro- 
lina and  Georgia  are  discussed  at  some  length, 
Made  respectively  in  1790  and  1802,  after  the  west- 
ward migration  had  commenced,  it  goes  without 
saying  that  considerable  portions  of  their  western 
lands  had  been  sold  or  granted  away.  In  the  North 
Carolina  cession  the  soil  was  so  covered  with  war- 
rants, surveys,  and  patents,  that  it  was  never 
brought  under  the  national  land  system  nor  dis- 
posed of  in  the  usual  manner,  while  in  the  south- 
west the  Yazoo  land  claims  caused  considerable 
annoyance  for  investors,  settlers,  and  Cbngress. 

Thus,  in  briefest  fashion,  the  origin  of  the  Pub- 
lic Domain  has  been  outlined.  Primarily  the  result 
of  the  successful  issue  of  the  Revolution,  it  stands, 
however,  as  the  result  of  the  cessions  by  the  states 
themselves.  Such  a  solution  avoided  the  host  of 
controversies  which  the  conflicting  claims  of  state 
against  nation  and  state  against  state  would  have 
produced.  In  some  cases  the  titles  which  the  states 
passed  were  of  questionable  validity,  but  as  all  the 
states  quit-claimed  their  rights  the  central  govern- 
ment did  not  need  to  search  the  title,  it  was  only 
when  states  tried  to  reserve  land  for  themselves  that 
any  question  was  raised.  But  before  any  of  the 
cessions  were  completed  a  discussion  had  arisen  as 
to  the  proper  disposition  of  the  new  domain. 

17  Chap.  IS. 


14  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

CESSIONS   OF    WESTERN    LANDS 

1780,  Feb.  19.    Act  of  New  York  Legislature. 
March   7.     Laid   before   Congress. 

Oct.   10.    Act  of  Connecticut  Legislature. 

1781,  Jan.  2.       Act  of  Virginia  Legislature. 

Mar.   1.    New  York  deed  of  cession  executed  in  Congress. 

1782,  Oct.  29.     New  York  cession  accepted  by  Congress. 

1783,  Sept.   13.     Virginia   cession   rejected. 
Oct.  20.     Second  Virginia  Act. 

1784,  March  1.     Virginia  cession  completed. 
June  2.    Act  of  North  Carolina  Legislature. 
Nov.  13.     Act  of  Massachusetts  Legislature. 

Nov.  20.    Act   of   North   Carolina  Legislature  repealed. 

1785,  Apr.    19.    Massachusetts    cession    completed. 

1786,  May   11.     Second   Act  of  Connecticut   Legislature. 
May  26.    Connecticut  cession   completed. 

1787,  March  8.    Act  of  South  Carolina  Legislature. 
August  9.    South  Carolina  cession  completed. 

1788,  Feb.  1.    First  Act  of  Georgia  Legislature. 
July  15.    Georgia  offer  rejected. 

1789,  Dec.  20.    Act  of  North  Carolina  Legislature. 

1790,  Feb.  25,  North  Carolina  cession  completed. 

1802,  April    24.     Articles    of   Agreement   and   Cession    entered   into 
between   the    Commissioners   of   the    United   States   and   of 
Georgia. 
June  16.     Ratified  by  the  Georgia  Legislature. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   FEDERAL   LAND   SYSTEM 

The  acquisition  of  the  public  domain  made  pos- 
sible a  national  system,  and  Congress  was  called 
upon  to  regulate  the  disposal  of  the  western  lands. 
The  discussions  of  the  past  few  years  had  revealed 
a  general  agreement  of  opinion  as  to  the  policy 
which  should  control  the  land  system.  The  lands 
were  considered  primarily  as  a  source  of  revenue, 
and  Congress  was  expected  to  so  provide  that  the 
lands  would  serve  to  relieve  the  financial  burdens  of 
the  struggling  nation.  Every  thoughtful  citizen 
could  appreciate  the  financial  possibilities  of  the 
new  domain,  although  the  tendency  was  to  exagger- 
ate the  immediate  value  of  the  vacant  lands.  Specu- 
lations in  land  were  not  new  in  this  coun- 
try, great  schemes  had  been  under  discussion  in  the 
western  country  even  before  the  Revolution,  and 
the  New  England  colonies  had  at  times  profited 
through  their  land  sales.  To  the  south  Virginia  1 
and  North  Carolina2  had  opened  land  offices  and 
expected  to  increase  their  annual  revenue  and  to 
sink  their  public  debt.  It  was  very  natural,  there- 
fore, for  persons  in  and  out  of  Congress  to  look 
upon  the  western  lands  as  a  valuable  asset,  which 
should  be  carefully  managed.  These  acres  were  to 

iHening,  X,  60-65.  2  N.  C.   Records,  24:43. 

15 


16  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

be  sold  for  a  fair  sum,  and  not  to  be  given  away  as 
had  so  often  been  the  case  in  colonial  days. 

Congress  could  not  prepare  a  plan  of  disposal  for 
the  lands  until  the  national  title  was  clear  to  at 
least  one  section  of  the  territory,  and  it  was  not 
until  March,  1784,  that  the  New  York  and  Virginia 
cessions  had  quieted  all  claims  to  the  southern  por- 
tion of  the  old  Northwest,  while  even  then  the  In- 
dian title  remained  to  be  dealt  with.  But  before 
this  time  a  plan  had  been  published  which  merits 
more  than  a  passing  notice.  Early  in  1781,  Pelatiah 
Webster,  relying  upon  the  future  cessions  of  the 
states,  had  proposed  a  system  for  the  disposal  of 
the  lands  which  is  highly  suggestive.3 

He  dismissed  with  scant  comment  the  proposal 
that  the  entire  domain  be  sold  or  mortgaged  to 
foreign  states  at  the  present  time :  "  It  would  be 
like  killing  the  goose  that  laid  an  egg  every  day  in 
order  to  tear  out  at  once  all  that  was  in  her  belly." 
Instead,  the  ceded  territory  should  be  carefully 
marked  off  from  the  unceded  and  intrusions  on  it 
should  be  rigidly  prohibited.  First,  the  land  should 
be  surveyed  into  townships4  of  six,  eight  or  ten 

» In  the  collected  essays  of  Pelatiah  Webster  this  essay  on  the 
"  Extent  and  Value  of  our  Western  Unlocated  lands,  and  the 
Proper  Method  of  disposing  of  them  so  as  to  gain  the  greatest 
possible  Advantage  frotn  them"  is  stated  to  have  been  first  pub- 
lished in  Philadelphia  on  April  25th,  1781,  but  in  Almon's  "  Lon- 
don Remembrancer  "  for  1782  the  essay  appears  anonymously  under 
the  signature  of  "  A  Gentleman  of  Philadelphia "  and  the  date  of 
February  17,  1781. 

*  The  township  idea  was  early  before  Congress.  In  1778  Congress 
offered  land  in  townships  of  from  20,000  to  60,000  acres  to  Hessian 
deserters.  The  land  was  to  be  provided  by  the  states.  J.  X.  405. 


ORIGIN    OF   THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     17 

miles  square ;  then  it  should  be  sold  at  auction  to  the 
highest  bidder,  and  the  minimum  price  should  be 
one  Spanish  dollar  per  acre;  purchasers  should  be 
obliged  to  settle  and  improve  the  land  within  two 
or  three  years  or  forfeit  the  same ;  and,  finally,  the 
townships  should  be  laid  out  in  courses  or  tiers, 
and  should  be  sold  in  that  fashion — only  when  one 
tier  was  settled  should  the  next  be  placed  on 
sale. 

There  were  certain  advantages  in  this  system 
which  the  author  proceeded  to  develop.  It  would 
push  out  settlements  in  close  columns,  much  less 
assailable  by  the  enemy  and  more  easily  defended. 
Laws,  customs  and  police  could  be  easily  extended, 
and  it  would  prevent  one  great  abuse,  that  of  the 
absentee  proprietor  profiting  through  the  hard- 
ships and  labors  of  the  pioneers.  The  Indians  should 
be  kindly  treated,  and,  in  order  to  avoid  friction, 
intruders  should  be  removed,  for  Webster  had  little 
sympathy  for  settlers  without  permission — they 
merited  punishment  rather  than  reward.  He  held 
also  that  salt  licks,  coal  and  mineral  lands  should  be 
reserved  for  the  public  use. 

The  merit  of  this  plan  does  not  lie  in  any  orig- 
inality of  the  author.  It  will  later  be  shown  that 
almost  every  one  of  these  provisions  may  be  found 
in  the  land  system  of  the  New  England  colonies, 
but  Pelatiah  Webster  was  apparently  the  first  to 
apply  this  colonial  experience  to  the  problem  which 
was  soon  to  confront  the  Congress  of  the  Confed- 
eration. 


18  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

Between  1781  and  1784,  when  the  first  Congress- 
ional land  committee  reported,  the  general  subject 
of  the  western  lands  was  several  times  before  Con- 
gress, and  the  discussions  doubtless  served  to  de- 
velop the  opinions  on  the  subject  of  a  land  system. 
When  the  various  states  offered  to  cede  their 
claims  only  one  of  them  made  any  stipulation  as 
to  the  method  of  disposing  of  the  land.  Connecti- 
cut, in  her  first  offer  of  October,  1780,  had  insisted 
upon  the  extension  of  the  township  system  over  the 
area  ceded  by  her.  The  land  was  "to  be  laid  out 
and  surveyed  in  townships  in  regular  form  to  a  suit- 
able number  of  settlers  in  such  manner  as  will  best 
promote  the  settlement  and  cultivation  of  the  same 
—according  to  the  true  spirit  and  principles  of  a 
Republican  state." 5  This  system  of  disposition  was 
accepted  by  the  committee  which  reported  on  the 
cessions  of  New  York,  Virginia,  and  Connecticut, 
and  the  petitions  of  the  Indiana,  Vandalia,  Illinois 
and  Wabash  companies,  for  it  recommended  that 
the  new  states  "shall  be  laid  out  into  townships  of 
the  quantity  of  about  six  miles  square."  No  action 
was  taken  on  this  report  by  Congress." 

In  the  spring  of  1783  interest  in  the  actual  dis- 
position of  the  western  lands  was  stimulated  by  the 
proposition  on  the  part  of  certain  of  the  officers  in 

5  MSS.,  Conn.  State  Library,  Susq.  Settlers,  I,  128. 

6  Report  presented  Nov.  3,  1781,  but  entered  on  the  Journal  of 
May  1,  1782,  J.  IV,  20-25;  227.    This  recommendation  was  doubt- 
less due  to  the  fact  that  the  committee  was  composed  of  Northern 
men,  from  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Is- 
land, and  Maryland, 


6MGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     19 

the  army  at  Newburgh  to  found  a  new  state  north- 
west of  the  Ohio.  This  plan  was  discussed  in  the 
early  part  of  April,  and  the  first  propositions  called 
for  the  satisfaction  in  that  region  of  the  bounty 
offers  of  Congress,  while  additional  lands  would  be 
given  to  those  settling  within  a  year.7  "  These  rights 
being  secured,  all  the  surplus  lands  shall  be  the  com- 
mon property  of  the  state,  and  disposed  of  for  the 
common  good;  as  for  laying  out  roads,  building 
bridges,  erecting  public  buildings,  establishing 
schools  and  academies,  defraying  the  expenses  of 
government,  and  other  public  uses."  Conditions  of 
settlement  and  cultivation  were  to  be  attached  to 
each  grant,  with  penalties  of  forfeiture  for  non- 
compliance.  The  United  States  was  expected  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  the  march  to  the  Ohio,  and 
to  furnish  subsistence  for  three  years,  and.  finally, 
the  total  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  region  was 
desired. 

While  the  officers  were  considering  their  plan  of 
settlement  and  before  their  petition  was  actually 
presented  another  proposition  was  laid  before  Con- 
gress which  would  have  used  the  western  lands  not 
only  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  military  Bounties  but 
for  the  settlement  of  the  sums  due  for  arrearages 
and  half  pay.  In  another  chapter  these  details  of 
the  report  will  be  discussed,  but  there  were  features 
of  more  general  interest  in  this  proposal  of  Mr. 
Bland,  of  Virginia,  of  June  5,  1783.8  The  territory 

7  Pickering,  I,  457,  546. 

s  Seconded   by   Hamilton.     Ban.    I,   312-4. 


20  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

to  be  set  apart  for  the  accounts  due  the  soldiers  was 
to  be  "  laid  off  into  districts  not  exceeding  two  de- 
grees of  latitude  and  three  degrees  of  longitude 
each,  and  into  townships  not  exceeding  .  .  .  miles 
square."  The  exterior  lines  of  the  districts  were  to 
be  run  by  surveyors  appointed  and  paid  by  the 
United  States.  Out  of  every  hundred  thousand 
acres  granted  to  the  soldiers  there  should  be  re- 
served ten  thousand  acres,  which  would  remain  for- 
ever a  common  property  of  the  United  States  unless 
disposed  of  by  Congress,  and  the  proceeds  of  these 
reserved  tracts  might  be  used  for  "  the  payment  of 
the  civil  list  of  the  United  States ;  the  erecting  fron- 
tier forts;  the  founding  of  seminaries  of  learning; 
and  the  surplus  after  such  purposes  (if  any)  to  be 
appropriated  to  the  building  and  equipping  a  navy, 
and  to  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatever."  The 
lands  to  be  granted  to  the  soldiers  were  to  be  free 
from  all  taxes  and  quit-rents  for  seven  years  after 
the  passing  of  the  Ordinance. 

These  plans,  known  as  the  "  Army  Plan  "  and 
the  "  Financier's  Plan,"  were  alike  in  their  insist- 
ence upon  the  township  system,  but  they  differed 
as, to  the  ownership  of  the  unappropriated  land.  In 
the  former  the  land  would  belong  to  the  state  and 
would  be  used  for  local  needs,  there  would  be  no 
ownership  of  land  within  the  state  by  the  nation ;  in 
the  latter  the  national  domain  was  to  be  assured 
through  definite  reserves  and  their  proceeds  were 
to  be  used  for  general  needs.  The  "  Financier's 
Plan  "  was  referred  to  the  Grand  Committee  of 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     21 

May  30th,  and  no  action  seems  to  have  been  taken 
on  it. 

The  petition  of  the  officers  was  finally  presented 
to  General  Washington  on  June  16th  and  for- 
warded by  him  to  Congress  on  the  next  day.9  Of 
the  two  hundred  and  eighty-five  petitioners,  one 
hundred  and  fifty-five  were  officers  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts line,  forty-six  from  Connecticut,  thirty- 
six  from  New  Jersey,  thirty-four  from  New 
Hampshire,  thirteen  from  Maryland,  and  one  from 
New  York.  Rufus  Putnam,  in  a  letter  to  Wash- 
ington which  accompanied  the  petition,  discussed 
the  territory  which  they  desired  and  expressed  the 
wish  that  the  grants  be  made  by  townships,  six 
miles  square,  or  six  by  twelve,  or  six  by  eighteen,  to 
be  subdivided  by  the  proprietors  to  six  miles  square, 
"  that  being  the  standard  on  which  they  wish  all 
calculations  may  be  made."  They  also  desired  re- 
serves for  schools  and  for  the  ministry.  Washing- 
ton approved  the  plan  heartily  and  wrote  to  Con- 
gress that  not  only  was  the  region  designated  the 
one  which  should  first  be  settled,  but  that  it  could 
not  "  be  so  advantageously  settled  by  any  other 
class  of  men  as  by  the  disbanded  officers  and  soldiers 
of  the  army,"  for  this  plan  of  colonization  "  would 
connect  our  government  with  the  frontiers,  extend 
our  settlements  progressively,  and  plant  a  brave,  a 
hardy  and  respectable  race  of  people  as  our 
advanced  post,  who  would  be  always  ready  and  will- 

9  Petition  in  Cutler,  I,  159;  Washington's  letter  in  Cutler,  I,  172; 
Putnam's  letter  in  Cutler,  I,  167. 


22  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

ing  (in  case  of  hostility)  to  combat  the  savages  and 
check  their  incursions."  Washington  also  urged 
the  matter  in  person  while  the  Congress  sat  at 
Princeton.10  The  members  pleaded  the  incomplete 
cession  of  the  lands,  and  finally  Congress  stated  on 
October  29th,  on  the  memorial  of  General  Armand. 
that  they  could  not  at  that  time  make  any  appro- 
priation of  land,  "  much  less  can  they  assign  certain 
districts  to  any  particular  corps."  ll 

The  next  year  saw  the  completion  of  the  Virginia 
cession  and  then,  for  the  first  time,  was  a  committee 
appointed  to  prepare  a  plan  for  the  disposal  of  the 
lands.  The  idea  of  using  the  lands  as  a  fund  for 
meeting  the  national  debt  was  uppermost  and  the 
committee  naturally  prepared  a  plan  with  this  in 
view.  The  committee  of  1784  was  composed  of 
Jefferson,  of  Virginia,  chairman;  Williamson,  of 
North  Carolina;  Howell,  of  Rhode  Island;  Gerry, 
of  Massachusetts,  and  Read,  of  South  Carolina.  It 
was  not  expected  that  these  men  would  devise  an 
entirely  new  land  system  for  the  public  domain,  and 
it  would  have  been  difficult  for  any  untried  plan  to 
be  adopted  by  Congress.  Instead  they  would  turn 
to  the  methods  used  in  the  states  which  they  repre- 
sented and  they  would  endeavor  to  apply  the  best 
of  the  colonial  experience  to  the  problem  before 
them.  For  that  reason  it  is  very  necessary  that 
some  attention  be  paid  to  the  methods  employed  by 
the  colonies  before  the  Revolution  in  the  disposal 
of  their  lands. 

10  Cutler,  I,  177.  »  J.  IV,  304. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND   SYSTEM     23 

Two  very  definite  land  systems  had  developed 
during  the  colonial  period — the  New  England  and 
the  Southern.  "  Township  planting  "  was  the  basis 
of  the  New  England  system  and  this  was  perfected 
in  the  18th  century.  The  laying  out  of  townships 
by  the  colony  preceded  private  ownership,  and  there 
could  be  no  title  to  land  outside  a  township.12 
Within  the  township  the  land  was  divided  into 
tracts  by  the  colony,  the  town,  or  the  proprietors, 
these  tracts  were  definite  in  amount,  carefully  laid 
out,  plats  were  prepared  and  bounds  were  re- 
corded. And  the  surveys  almost  always  preceded 
settlement.  The  towns  were  responsible  for  the 
accuracy  of  the  surveys  and  town-officers,  fence 
viewers,  took  care  that  the  bounds  were  accurately 
determined.  In  the  Eighteenth  Century  groups  of 
townships  were  frequently  laid  out,  sometimes  in 
tiers,  and  a  favorite  area  was  a  tract  of  six  miles 
square.  The  custom  of  selling  these  townships  at 
auction  also  appeared.  The  success  of  the  New 
England  system  of  township  planting  so  impressed 
the  home  government  that  the  instructions  of  Rob- 
ert Johnson,  Governor  of  South  Carolina,  of  June 
10,  1730,  contained  directions  to  mark  out  eleven 
townships  within  sixty  miles/  of  Charlestown,  in 
square  plats  of  20,000  acres  each.13  Ten  townships 
were  thus  laid  out.14  Others  proposed  to  extend 
the  system  over  larger  areas.  Kennedy's  plan  of 

12  This  statement  describes  the  general  system.     There  might  be 
exceptions. 

is  P.  L.   I,  46.  i*  Ramsay,   I,    108. 


24  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

1752  would  have  used  the  township  system  in  his 
western  colony.15  Hazard's  scheme  of  1755  prom- 
ised that  the  settlement  would  be  laid  out  into  town- 
ships and  the  tracts  divided  by  lot.16  Connecticut 
men  carried  this  township  system  into  the  Wyoming 
country,17,  and  also  into  West  Florida  in  their 
Natchez  Colony,18  and  Connecticut,  in  1780,  tried 
to  bind  the  nation  to  establish  the  system  in  the 
tract  which  she  offered  to  cede.  New  England  was 
strongly  attached  to  this  system.  Grants  of  land 
for  education  and  for  religious  purposes  formed 
part  of  the  New  England  system  and  conditions 
for  the  improvement  of  the  lands  were  frequently 
inserted  in  the  grants. 

In  the  South  the  land  was  taken  up  by  the  loca- 
tion of  warrants  on  any  part  of  the  unappropriated 
area.  The  surveys  were  supposed  to  be  made  by 
public  surveyors  but  as  most  of  them  were  made  by 
deputies  of  little  experience  the  possibility  of  error 
was  always  present.19  The  Virginia  system  of  1779 
called  for  warrants,  certificates,  caveats,  and  grants 
— a  clumsy  system  compared  with  the  simple  deed 
in  New  England — and  the  records  were  poorly 
kept.20  North  Carolina  had  a  similar  system,  and  it 
was  being  extended  over  the  present  states  of  Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee. 

So  far  as  the  acquirement  of  land  was  concerned 
the  main  difference  between  the  two  systems  lay 
in  the  fact  that  in  the  South  individual  initiative 

«  Frothingham,   116.  is  P.  L.,  I,  133,  257. 

i«  Broadside,  Conn.  State  Lib.        u>  Roosevelt,  III,  8. 
IT  Miner;   Wyoming,    104.  20  Hening,  X,  50. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     25 

played  a  larger  part.  A  person  could  select  a  desir- 
able tract  of  unappropriated  land  and  he  could  have 
it  laid  off  for  him  by  a  county  surveyor  under  his 
direction.  He  did  not  need  to  consider  the  relation 
of  other  pieces  of  property  to  his  own.  This  was 
properly  called  "  indiscriminate  location."  But  in 
New  England  the  waste  land  in  the  township  was 
laid  off  by  colonial  or  local  committees  who  fixed 
the  bounds  of  the  various  tracts  with  reference  to 
the  neighboring  allotments.  These  divisions  were 
at  once  recorded  so  that  the  possibility  of  over-lap- 
ping claims  was  very  slight.  An  individual  could 
not  engross  the  best  land  for  himself — the  proprie- 
tors or  the  townspeople  shared  in  each  division  of 
the  unappropriated  land.  If  the  Southern  system 
encouraged  initiative  and  resourcefulness  the  New 
England  system  afforded  a  security  of  title  which 
facilitated  an  orderly  settlement  of  new  lands. 

The  relative  value  of  these  systems  is  evident. 
The  one  provided  a  sure  protection  against  over- 
lapping surveys  and  title  disputes,  and  it  placed  the 
town  or  colony  as  guaranty  for  the  accuracy  of  the 
survey  and  the  title  which  passed  thereby.  Also, 
as  the  settlement  was  made  by  townships  it  tended 
toward  compactness  over  against  the  system  of  in- 
discriminate location  in  the  South.  The  lack  of 
proper  surveys,  the  careless  manner  of  recording 
titles,  the  use  of  natural  bounds,  caused  constant 
confusion  and  endless  litigation.  Both  systems  were 
the  embodiment  of  colonial  experience.  That  of 
New  England  was  adapted  to  a  free  population, 


2(5 

loving  community  life  and  forced  to  it,  as  well,  for 
protection  against  the  savages  and  mutual  help  dur- 
ing the  severe  winters.  The  other  was  the  develop- 
ment of  a  society  where  large  plantations  and  slave 
labor,  less  hostile  Indians  and  a  favoring  climate 
permitted  the  extension  and  scattering  of  settle- 
ment over  the  coast  lands,  while  in  the  back  country 
the  system  enabled  the  pioneers  to  locate  the  good 
lands  along  the  streams. 

Jefferson's  committee  reported  to  Congress  on 
the  seventh  of  May,  and  although  three  of  the  five 
members  came  from  southern  states  they  recom- 
mended the  distinctly  New  England  system  of  dis- 
criminate prior  surveys. 

Their  report21  provided  for  the  disposition  of  the 
lands  after  they  had  been  purchased  from  the  In- 
dians and  laid  off  into  states.  The  territory  was  to 
be  divided  into  "  hundreds,"  of  ten  geographical 
miles  square,  each  mile  containing  6086.4  feet,  and 
the  "  hundreds "  into  lots  one  geographical  mile 
square,  each  containing  850.4  acres.  The  lines  were 
to  run  due  north  and  south,  by  the  true  meridian, 
and  east  and  west.  Surveyors  and  registers  were 
to  be  appointed  by  Congress.  The  land  was  to  be 
sold  by  warrants,22  and  these  could  be  purchased  by 
specie,  loan  office  certificates — reduced  to  specie  by 
the  scale  of  depreciation,  certificates  of  the  liqui- 
dated debt,  or  military  warrants.  Prospective  set- 
tlers would  purchase  warrants,  for  a  lot  or  a  "  hun- 
dred," and  then  locate  them,  which  explains  an  in- 

21  J.,  IV,  416.  22  No  price  per  acre  was  specified. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     27 

teresting  provision,  drawn  from  Virginian  experi- 
ence,23 which  stated  that  no  patent  should  issue  until 
the  warrant  and  certificate  had  been  in  the  hands  of 
the  register  for  .  .  .  months,  during  which  time  a 
person  claiming  under  a  prior  location  could  file  a 
caveat  and  the  conflicting  claims  would  then  be 
settled  by  arbitration. 

The  important  features  of  this  report  were,  in 
brief,  that  surveys  should  precede  sales ;  "  hun- 
dreds," of  ten  geographical  miles  square,  sub- 
divided into  lots,  were  to  be  laid  off;  and  the  pro- 
ceeds were  to  be  applied  to  the  sinking  fund  solely. 
There  was  no  provision  for  education  or  religion. 

Although  this  report  was  in  Jefferson's  hand- 
writing24 yet  One  can  hardly  infer  that  he  "  in- 
vented "  the  system  which  was  outlined.  This  re- 
port combined  the  New  England  system  of  surveys 
with  the  southern  system  of  disposition — the  use  of 
warrants,  certificates  and  caveats.  But  the  latter 
procedure  was  not  incorporated  in  the  system  as 
finally  adopted.  The  merit  of  the  report  of  1784 
lies  in  the  fact  that  the  committee  proposed  a  better 
system  than  the  one  which  was  in  use  in  the  major- 
ity of  the  states  which  they  represented. 

On  May  28th,  Congress  voted  not  to  consider  the 
report  at  that  time,  only  North  Carolina  voting  for 
immediate  action.25 

Almost  a  year  passed  before  Congress  once  more 
took  up  the  question  of  the  public  domain.  Settlers 

23Hening,  X,  50.     Act  of  1779.  2*  Ban.,  I,  159. 

25  J.,  IV,  419. 


28  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

were  passing  over  the  mountains  to  the  Ohio  coun- 
try,26 the  soldiers  were  demanding  their  promised 
bounty,  the  need  of  an  increased  revenue  was  keenly 
felt,  and,  moreover,  far-sighted  men  realized  the 
importance  of  establishing  a  permanent  system  for 
the  settling  of  the  western  lands. 

In  the  summer  of  1784,  Washington  made  a 
journey  into  the  west  to  examine  the  portages  be- 
tween the  Potomac  and  James  rivers  on  the  Atlan- 
tic side,  and  the  Ohio  and  Kanawha  on  the  western 
side  of  the  mountains.27  Although  he  did  not  reach 
or  cross  the  Ohio  yet  he  gathered  all  the  informa- 
tion he  could  about  that  region  and  communicated 
his  observations  regarding  the  public  domain  to 
Jacob  Read,  then  a  member  of  Congress. 

He  was  impressed  with  the  need  of  a  progressive 
and  compact  settlement  of  the  West,  but  if  this  was 
to  be  secured  Congress  would  have  to  act  rapidly. 
"  Such  is  the  rage  for  speculating  in  and  forestall- 
ing of  lands  on  the  north-west  of  the  Ohio  that 
scarce  a  valuable  spot,  within  a  tolerable  distance  of 
it,  is  left  without  a  claimant.  Men  in  these  times 
talk  with  as  much  facility  of  fifty,  an  hundred,  and 
even  five  hundred  thousand  acres,  as  a  gentleman 
would  formerly  do  of  one  thousand." 28  He  pointed 
out  the  conduct  of  these  people,  roving  about  on  the 
Indian  side  of  the  Ohio,  marking  out  lands,  survey- 
ing and  settling  them,  and  causing  discontent 
among  the  Indians.  He  proposed  that  Congress 

26  Ban.,  I,  333,  368.  27  Ban.,   U.  S.,  VI,   125. 

28  Nov.  3,  1784.     Ban.,  I,  387. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     29 

should  purchase  enough  land  from  the  Indians  to 
make  one  or  two  states,  and  sell  the  land  at  a  price 
that  would  discourage  monopolizers  and  yet  not  be 
burdensome  for  real  occupiers.  Furthermore  Con- 
gress should  declare  the  acts  of  the  trespassers  be- 
yond the  Ohio  null  and  void  and  should  declare  all 
intruders  on  the  Indian  lands  outlaws  and  fit  sub- 
jects for  Indian  vengeance. 

In  this  letter  and  in  one  of  March  15,  1785,  to 
Richard  Henry  Lee,  President  of  Congress,  Wash- 
ington pointed  out  the  desirability  of  selling  a  small 
amount  of  land  at  a  medium  price.29  He  firmly 
believed  in  "progressive  seating,"  as  he  described 
it,  yet  the  conditions  which  he  deplored  northwest 
of  the  Ohio  were  but  reproductions  of  those  south 
of  the  river,  where,  under  the  Virginian  system,  the 
lands  were  being  taken  up.  "  Progressive  seating  " 
could  best  be  obtained  under  the  New  England  sys- 
tem of  "  township  planting,"  yet  it  does  not  follow 
that  Washington  had  that  system  in  mind.  These 
recommendations  of  an  authority  on  western  condi- 
tions being  placed  in  the  hands  of  leading  members 
of  Congress30  must  undoubtedly  have  received 
some  consideration  from  those  who  perused  them. 

On  March  4,  1785,  the  report  of  1784  was  again 
taken  into  consideration.  It  was  read  a  second  time 
on  March  16,  and,  after  debate,  was  referred  to  a 
committee  of  one  member  from  each  State,  whose 
most  valuable  members  were  probably  William 

29  Ban.,  I,  416. 

so  Lee  showed  the  letter  to  Grayson.    Ban.,  I,  425. 


30  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

Grayson,  of  Virginia,  and  Rufus  King,  of  Massa- 
chusetts.81 

For  a  month  this  committee  had  the  subject 
under  consideration,  and  finally  they  presented  a 
report  on  the  14th  of  April,  which  was  much  more 
carefully  worked  out  than  the  report  of  the  year 
before.32  In  brief,  they  retained  the  rectangular 
townships,  but  reduced  the  size  to  seven  miles 
square  and  substituted  statute  miles  for  geograph- 
ical miles,  while  they  insisted  upon  "township 
planting  " —for  the  land  was  only  to  be  sold  in 
tracts  of  that  size.  The  land  was  to  be  sold  at 
auction,  with  a  minimum  price  of  $1.00  per  acre, 
and  reserves  were  set  apart  for  schools,  for  religious 
uses,  and  for  the  future  disposition  of  Congress.33 

The  day  after  the  report  was  presented,  Grayson 
forwarded  a  copy  to  General  Washington,  know- 
ing his  interest  in  any  action  Congress  might  con- 
template regarding  the  public  lands,  and  he  gave, 
at  some  length,  the  reasons  advanced  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  measure.34 

si  The  committee:  Long,  (N.  H.) ;  King,  (Mass.);  Howell,  (R. 
I.) ;  Johnson,  (Conn.)  ;  R.  R.  Livingston,  (N.  Y.)  ;  Stewart,  (N.  J.)  ; 
Gardner,  (Fa.);  J.  Henry,  (Md.) ;  Grayson,  (Va.) ;  Williamson, 
(N.  C.);  Bull,  (S.  C.);  Houston,  (Ga.).  Howell  and  Williamson 
had  been  on  the  Committee  of  1784.  Jefferson  had  sailed  for  Eu- 
rope in  1784. 

32  J.,  IV,  500. 

83  Grayson  to  Washington,  April  15th,  gives  the  impression  that 
the  report  was  made  on  April  12. — Bancroft,  I,  425.  Monroe  to 
Jefferson,  April  12th,  "  A  report  drawn  principally  by  Col.  Gray- 
son  will  be  delivered  in  a  few  days." — Monroe's  Writings,  I,  70. 
The  report  is  in  Grayson's  handwriting. — Ban.,  I,  180,  n. 

a*  April  15.     Ban.,  I,  425. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     31 

Surveys  were  advocated  because  they  would  en- 
able information  to  be  gained  concerning  the  lands, 
because  they  would  preclude  "controversy  on  ac- 
count of  bounds  to  the  latest  ages,"  and  because  the 
surveys  into  squares  were  the  least  expensive — there 
being  only  two  sides  of  the  square  to  be  run  in 
most  cases. 

Sale  by  auction  was  introduced  because  it  would 
give  equal  advantage  to  those  away  from  the  lands. 
Sale  by  township  was  defended  because  "  the  East- 
ern States,  where  lands  are  more  equally  divided 
than  in  any  other  part  of  the  continent,  were  gen- 
erally settled  in  that  manner;  that  the  idea  of  a 
township,  with  the  temptation  of  a  support  for  re- 
ligion and  education,  holds  forth  an  inducement  for 
the  purpose  of  purchasing  and  settling  together; 
that  the  Southern  mode  would  defeat  this  end  by 
intruding  the  idea  of  indiscriminate  locations  and 
settlements,  which  would  have  a  tendency  to  de- 
stroy all  these  inducements  to  emigration  which  are 
derived  from  friendships,  religion,  and  relative  con- 
nections; that  the  same  consequences  would  result 
from  sales  in  small  quantities  under  the  present 
plan."  Moreover,  such  a  laying-off  of  the  country 
tended  to  an  equal  representation,  while  the  ex- 
pense and  delay  would  prevent  division  into  smaller 
tracts. 

Under  this  system  the  poorer  classes  would  unite 
to  purchase  a  township;  if  a  speculator  purchased 
one  he  would  not  be  able  to  hold  it  on  account  of 
the  high  price  in  the  first  instance  and  interest 


32  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

charges,  and  if,  in  spite  of  these,  he  still  should  buy 
one,  then  the  great  design  of  the  land  office,  "  which 
is  revenue,"  would  be  answered. 

Furthermore,  it  was  said  that  "  the  offering  a 
small  number  of  townships  for  sale  at  a  time  is  an 
answer  to  the  objection  on  account  of  delay,  and 
at  the  same  time  it  prevents  the  price  from  being 
diminished,  on  account  of  the  markets  being  over- 
stocked," and  it  was  pointed  out  that  "  the  present 
plan  excludes  all  the  formalities  of  warrants,  en- 
tries, locations,  returns,  and  caveats,  as  the  first 
and  last  process  is  a  deed." 

The  sale  of  townships  in  the  different  states  was 
pronounced  "  conformable  to  the  principles  of  gov- 
ernment, one  state  having  an  equal  right  to  the 
best  lands  at  its  market  with  the  other;  as  also  the 
disposing  of  its  public  securities  in  that  way."  "  If 
the  country  is  to  be  settled  out  of  the  bowels  of  the 
Atlantic  States,  it  is  but  fair  the  idea  of  each  state's 
contributing  its  proportion  of  emigrants  should  be 
countenanced  by  measures  operating  for  that  pur- 
pose." 

And,  finally,  the  advocates  of  the  report  agreed 
"  that  if  the  plan  should  be  found  by  experience  to 
be  wrong,  it  could  easily  be  altered  by  reducing  the 
quantities  and  multiplying  the  surveys." 

Grayson  then  proceeded  to  state  some  of  the 
ideas  which  clashed  during  the  drafting  of  the  re- 
port. "  Some  gentlemen  looked  upon  it  as  a  mat- 
ter of  revenue  only,  and  that  it  was  true  policy  to 
get  the  money  without  parting  with  inhabitants  to 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     38 

populate  the  country,  and  thereby  preventing  the 
lands  in  the  original  states  from  depreciating. 
Others  (I  think)  were  afraid  of  interference  with 
the  lands  now  at  market  in  the  individual  states. 
Part  of  the  Eastern  gentlemen  wish  to  have  the 
land  sold  in  such  a  manner  as  to  suit  their  own 
people,  of  whom  I  believe  there  will  be  great  num- 
bers, particularly  from  Connecticut.  But  others 
are  apprehensive  of  the  consequences  which  may 
result  from  the  new  states  taking  their  position  in 
the  confederacy.  They,  perhaps,  wish  that  this 
event  may  be  delayed  as  long  as  possible." 

A  very  informing  letter  was  this  one  of  Gray- 
son's,  and  from  it  can  be  secured  a  very  good  idea 
of  the  discussions  which  took  place  in  committee 
while  the  Ordinance  of  1785  was  being  drafted. 
One  thing  is  very  clear,  the  New  England  members 
had  carried  their  way  in  every  important  particular. 
As  Grayson  asked  for  Washington's  opinion  of  the 
proposed  plan,  the  latter  forwarded  a  criticism  on 
April  25.  He  dismissed  the  "  township  planting  " 
with  a  single  sentence — "  if  experience  has  proven 
that  the  most  advantageous  way  of  disposing  of 
whole  townships  is  by  whole  townships,  there  is  no 
arguing  against  facts."35  His  main  objection  was 
directed  against  the  proposed  sale  of  the  lands  in 
the  respective  States.  He  believed  there  was  no 
good  reason  for  it,  that  it  would  lead  to  State  job- 
bing, and  that  a  central  land  office  would  be  more 
convenient  and  would  encourage  competition. 

»5  Ban.,    I,   430. 


84  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

This  proved  to  be  one  of  the  first  features  of  the 
Ordinance  to  be  amended. 

With  the  presentation  of  the  report  the  discus- 
sion was  transferred  to  the  halls  of  Congress.  It 
could  hardly  be  expected  that  so  uncompromising  a 
measure  could  be  carried  without  a  struggle,  and  as 
the  vote  of  seven  States  was  necessary  for  passage, 
no  one  section  of  the  country  could  carry  the  meas- 
ure against  a  united  opposition. 

In  Congress  the  opposition  was  mainly  directed 
against  the  "  township  planting "  feature  of  the 
report.  There  is  no  record  of  any  Southern  mem- 
ber urging  the  system  of  "indiscriminate  loca- 
tions," 36  which  at  the  very  time  was  being  extended 
by  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  apparently  all 
accepted  the  advantages  of  the  rectangular  surveys 
before  sale.  Typical  of  the  spirit  of  the  times  was 
the  passage,  by  the  New  York  Legislature,  on 
April  11,  of  a  land  law 37  which  provided  for  town- 
ships of  six  miles  square,  and  should  a  body  of  per- 
sons unite  to  purchase  such  a  township  they  would 
receive  land  for  schools  and  a  minister  and  five  per 
cent,  of  the  price  for  roads;  but  smaller  tracts,  up 
to  five  hundred  acres  and  laid  off  in  equilateral 
squares,  might  be  sold.  Accepting  the  rectangular 

3«  Rufus  King  to  Gerry,  April  26,  1785:  "We  have  been  this 
fortnight  about  a  land  ordinance — Virginia  makes  many  difficul- 
ties— the  eastern  States  are  for  actual  survey,  and  gale  by  Town- 
ships, the  Southern  States  for  indiscriminate  Locations,  etc.  What 
will  pass,  if  anything  does,  is  wholly  uncertain." 

37  Loudon's  N.  Y.  Packet,  April  18,  1785.  Congress  was  then  in 
session  in  New  York  city. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     35 

surveys  did  not,  however,  mean  an  acceptance  of 
the  New  England  system  of  "  township  planting." 
The  delegates  from  the  South,  therefore,  sought  to 
amend  the  clause  which  provided  that  the  land 
could  only  be  sold  by  townships ;  they  would  make 
it  possible  for  settlers  to  purchase  smaller  amounts 
wherever  they  desired. 

This,  then,  was  a  clash  between  the  strict  New 
England  system  of  compact  settlements  and  dis- 
criminate locations  and  a  modified  Southern  sys- 
tem of  rectangular  surveys  but  individual  locations. 

For  over  a  month  the  land  ordinance  was  under 
consideration.  In  that  time  some  of  the  details 
were  altered  and  the  most  stoutly  contested  feature 
was  compromised.  It  became  evident  that  neither 
party  could  have  its  way  regarding  the  size  of  the 
minimum  tracts  to  be  sold.  Finally  a  compromise 
was  proposed  to  the  effect  that  in  alternate  town- 
ships the  land  should  be  divided  into  sections  of 
one  mile  square — 640  acres — and  in  these  town- 
ships the  land  would  be  sold  by  sections.  Half  the 
townships,  therefore,  would  be  offered  as  a  whole, 
and  these  would  appeal  to  New  England  settlers, 
while  in  the  other  half  it  would  be  possible  for  a 
purchaser  to  select  his  640  acres  without  waiting 
for  the  surrounding  land  to  be  sold,  but  his  tract 
must  be  bounded  by  sectional  lines.  The  New 
Englanders  were  sincere  in  their  loyalty  to  the  sys- 
tem of  "  township  planting,"  for  they  had  proven 
its  value  as  they  pushed  out  **  into  the  wilderness, 


36  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

and  surely  the  unsettled  conditions  north  of  the 
Ohio  at  that  time  made  compact  settlements  de- 
sirable. But  the  Southerners  grasped  better  the 
spirit  of  the  westward  movement,  and  in  insisting 
upon  the  sale  of  small  tracts  they  pointed  out  the 
development  of  the  land  system  for  the  next  fifty 
years. 

Other  amendments  reduced  the  size  of  the  town- 
ships to  six  miles  square  and  struck  out  the  reserva- 
tion of  a  section  in  each  township  for  the  support 
of  religion.  The  manner  in  which  the  latter  amend- 
ment was  made  is  worth  noting,  because  it  shows  so 
clearly  one  of  the  great  defects  of  the  government 
under  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  The  question 
was  put,  Shall  the  words  stand?  Five  States  fa- 
vored retention,  two  opposed,  two  were  divided, 
and  three  were  not  sufficiently  represented  to  cast 
a  vote.  As  seven  states  did  not  support  the  mo- 
tion, it  was  lost,  and  the  words  stricken  out,  al- 
though seventeen  of  the  members  present  favored 
and  only  six  opposed.  If  the  question  had  been 
put  in  a  different  way :  Shall  the  words  be  stricken 
out?  it  could  not  have  carried. 

On  the  20th  of  May  the  Land  Ordinance  of 
1785 38  was  finally  passed,  and  in  final  form  its 
provisions  were  substantially  as  follows:  The  ter- 
ritory ceded  by  the  States  was  to  be  disposed  of  as 
soon  as  the  Indian  title  was  purchased — the  for- 
mation of  States  was  no  longer  a  prerequisite.  The 
land  was  to  be  surveyed  into  townships  of  six  miles 

»s  See  Appendix  II. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     37 

square,  subdivided  into  lots39  of  one  mile  square. 
The  first  lines  north  and  south,  and  east  and  west, 
were  to  commence  on  the  Ohio  River  at  the  Penn- 
sylvania border,  and  only  the  township  lines  were 
to  be  actually  surveyed.  The  townships  were  to  be 
sold  alternately  as  a  whole  and  by  lots.  The  sales 
were  to  take  place  in  the  States.  As  soon  as  seven 
ranges40  were  surveyed  the  townships  were  to  be 
drawn  by  lot,  one-seventh  of  the  entire  amount  for 
the  claims  of  the  Continental  army,  and  the  balance 
was  to  be  drawn  and  distributed  among  the  States 
"  according  to  the  quotas  in  the  last  preceding  req- 
uisition," to  be  sold  by  the  commissioners  of  the 
loan-offices  therein  at  public  auction.  A  minimum 
price  of  one  dollar41  per  acre  was  established,  which, 
might  be  paid  in  specie,  loan-office  certificates  re- 
duced to  specie,  or  certificates  of  the  liquidated 
debt,  including  interest;  but  the  expenses  of  sur- 
veying, estimated  at  $36.00  per  township,  must  also 
be  paid  by  the  purchaser  at  the  time  of  sale.  The 
purchasers  secured  deeds  for  definite  tracts  of  land 

39  The  term  "  section  "  was  used  in  the  debates  on  the  Ordinance 
and  in  some  of  the  motions,  but  it  was  not  used  in  the  Ordinance 
as  passed.  It  first  appears  in  the  Federal  land  laws  in  the  act  of 
1796.  Professor  Frederick  J.  Turner  states  "the  640  acre  (or  one 
square  mile)  unit  of  North  Carolina  for  pre-emptions,  and  frontier 
land  bounties,  became  the  area  awarded  to  frontier  stations  by 
Virginia  in  1779,  and  the  " '  section '  of  the  later  federal  land 
system."  Proceedings  of  the  State  Historical  Society  of  Wis- 
consin, 1908,  p.  231. 

*o  A  range  was  a  tier  of  townships  running  from  south  to  north. 
The  ranges  were  enumerated  from  east  to  west. 

*i  Efforts  were  made  to  reduce  the  price  to  one-half  or  two-thirds 
of  a  dollar. 


38  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

and  not  warrants  permitting  a  future  location. 
Congress  reserved  for  future  disposition  sections 
8,  11,  26,  and  29  in  each  township,  as  well  as  one- 
third  part  of  all  gold,  silver,  lead,  and  copper  mines, 
and  the  sixteenth  lot  in  each  township  was  reserved 
for  the  maintenance  of  public  schools.  The  form 
of  deeds  as  well  as  the  manner  of  issuing  them  was 
prescribed,  as  well  as  the  method  of  obtaining  mili- 
tary bounty  warrants,42  a  reservation  of  three 
townships  was  made  for  the  lands  already  prom- 
ised to  Canadian  and  Nova  Scotian  refugees  dur- 
ing the  Revolution,43  and  three  towns  were  reserved 
for  the  Christian  Indians  settled  therein. 

If  the  influence  of  New  England  upon  the  for- 
mation of  the  national  land  system  is  not  already 
evident,  it  could  be  shown  through  the  influence 
exerted  by  Timothy  Pickering,  of  Massachusetts. 
Just  before  Congress  took  up  the  report  of  1784, 
in  1785,  he  wrote  to  Gerry  for  information  concern- 
ing the  plans  for  disposing  of  the  Western  lands. 
"If  they  mean  to  permit  adventurers  to  make  a 
scramble  for  them  (as  has  been  the  case  in  this 
State  and  Virginia)  it  will  behoove  us  to  engage 
reasonably  with  some  enterprising  but  confidential 
character,  to  explore  the  country  and  make  loca- 
tions. But  I  should  rather  suppose  that  Congress 
would  fall  on  a  more  regular  plan.  .  .  ."  And  he 
proceeded  to  outline  a  system  of  surveys  into  town- 
ships and  lots,  sales  to  be  by  auction  and  surveys 

42  See  Chapter  10.  «  See  Chapter  12. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    FEDERAL    LAND    SYSTEM     39 

to  be  paid  for  by  the  purchaser.44  Gerry  replied, 
enclosing  a  draft  of  the  report  of  1784,  and,  as  he 
was  about  to  return  home,  asked  Pickering  to  com- 
municate with  Rufus  King.  Pickering  wrote  to 
King  on  March  8  and  criticised  the  report  of  1784 
because  the  surveys  did  not  provide  for  the  conver- 
gence of  the  meridians  toward  the  north;  he  also 
held  that  the  land  should  be  sold  at  auction  with 
a  minimum  price,  and  that  salt  licks  and  mines 
should  be  reserved.45  He  especially  criticised  the 
lack  of  educational  and  religious  reserves. 

When  Grayson's  committee  reported,  King  sent 
a  draft  to  Pickering  and  stated,  "You  will  find 
thereby,  that  your  ideas  have  had  weight  with  the 
Committee  who  reported  the  ordinance." 46  Gray- 
son  wrote  to  Pickering  on  the  27th;  and  on  May  8 
King  wrote  that  they  had  been  forced  to  "  give  up 
the  plan  of  townships  as  to  admit  the  sale  of  one- 
half  of  the  townships  in  lots  of  a  mile  square.47 
And  on  the  30th  he  wrote,  "  All  parties  who  have 
advocated  particular  modes  of  disposing  of  this 
western  territory  have  relinquished  some  things 
they  wished,  and  the  ordinance  is  a  compromise  of 
opinions.'* 48 

Thus,  out  of  conflicting  interests,  through  com- 
promise and  concession,  arose  the  American  land 
system.  Refusing  to  try  vague  experiments  in  that 
valued  domain,  Congress  adopted  the  system  which 

44  From   Phila.,   Mar.   1,    1785.     Pickering,   I,   504,. 

45  Pickering,   I,  506.  47514. 
« April  15,  1785.     Pickering,  I,  511.                         43516. 


40  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

had  proven  most  effective  in  the  old  States,  and, 
refusing  to  sacrifice  the  future  for  a  temporary 
gain,  it  preferred  to  postpone  the  land  revenue 
rather  than  to  make  use  of  a  dangerous  expedient. 
For  the  carefully  run  rectangular  surveys  would 
take  time  and  would  add  to  the  expense  of  the 
lands,  whereas  the  system  in  vogue  south  of  the 
Ohio  provided  an  immediate  revenue  for  the  State 
but  frequently  left  the  purchaser  with  an  accumu- 
lation of  boundary  disputes.  New  England  could 
not  carry  her  "  township  planting  "  unaltered  into 
the  West,  and  with  the  close  of  the  Indian  wars 
the  system  of  individual  settlement,  encouraged  by 
the  sale  of  small  tracts,  was  more  desirable;  but 
the  system  of  prior  "  discriminate "  surveys  was 
hers  and  represents  one  of  her  great  contributions 
to  the  development  of  the  West. 

The  Ordinance  of  1785  was  the  foundation  of 
the  American -Land  System,  and  its  leading  prin- 
ciples have  continued  in  operation  to  this  day.  Too 
much  credit  cannot  be  given  to  the  men  who  framed 
and  adopted  this  measure,  for,  though  of  little  im- 
mediate usefulness  and  later  ignored  for  a  season, 
it  proved  to  be  one  of  the  wisest  and  most  influen- 
tial, if  not  the  wisest  and  most  influential,  of  all 
the  acts  of  the  Revolutionary  period. 


CHAPTER  III 

LAND  SALES  UNDER  THE  CONFEDERATION,  1787-1789 

Now  that  the  Land  Ordinance  had  been  passed, 
it  remained  for  Congress  to  provide  means  for  its 
execution.  According  to  the  Ordinance,  the  sur- 
veys, which  must  be  made  before  the  land  could  be 
placed  on  sale,  were  to  be  made  by  surveyors,  one 
from  each  State,  chosen  by  Congress,  but  all  act- 
ing under  the  direction  of  the  Geographer  of  the 
United  States.  Thomas  Hutchins  had  been  ap- 
pointed one  of  two  geographers  on  May  4,  1781, 
and  after  1784  he  was  sole  Geographer.  He  was 
a  man  of  considerable  experience,  having  served  as 
a  British  officer  for  more  than  twenty-two  years, 
notably  in  Bouquet's  expedition  of  1764,  and  in  the 
Revolution  he  had  been  detailed  to  the  Southern 
army  under  General  Greene.1  In  1784  he  had  been 
engaged  in  running  the  Virginia-Pennsylvania 
line.  A  week  after  the  Ordinance  was  adopted, 
Congress  continued  Hutchins  in  his  office  for  three 
years,  with  a  salary  of  six  dollars  per  day,  includ- 
ing expenses.  At  the  same  time  nine  surveyors 
were  appointed  from  as  many  States,  and  four 
others  were  chosen  within  the  next  two  months.2 

i  Hutchins,  9. 

B  They  were  to  be  paid  $2.00  per  mile  for  surveys,  which  was  to 
include  the  wages  of  their  helpers  and  all  other  expenses.  There 
was  difficulty  in  filling  some  of  these  positions.  Three  surveyors 
for  New  Hampshire  were  elected  in  turn  between  May  27  and 
August  24,  1785. 

41 


42  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

Hutchins  promptly  commenced  preparations  for 
the  surveys.  On  September  3  he  met  five  of  the 
surveyors  at  Pittsburg,  where  fear  of  the  Indians 
kept  his  party  until  the  22d,  but  between  that  date 
and  October  23  the  surveyors  ran  an  east-and-west 
line  for  some  distance,  until  the  Indians  forced 
them  to  return.3 

On  May  9,  1786,  Congress  instructed  the  Geog- 
rapher and  surveyors  to  proceed  to  the  execution 
of  the  Ordinance,4  but  added  that  they  were  not  to 
survey  north  of  the  first  east-and-west  line,  which 
ran  from  the  junction  of  the  Pennsylvania  boun- 
dary and  the  Ohio  River;  and  on  the  12th  the  pro- 
vision that  all  lines  be  run  by  the  true  meridian  and 
that  the  variation  of  the  magnetic  needle  be  certi- 
fied on  each  plat,  was  repealed  because  it  would 
greatly  delay  the  surveys.5  This  was  the  first  alter- 
ation in  the  Ordinance,  and  a  most  unfortunate  one 
it  would  have  been  if  it  had  not  been  later  amended. 
Late  in  July,  Hutchins  again  arrived  in  Pittsburg 
and  was  engaged  in  the  surveys  until  the  first  of 
the  following  February,  during  which  time  some- 
what more  than  four  ranges  were  surveyed,  and  the 
plats  were  submitted  to  Congress  on  April  18, 
1787.  The  next  year  his  appointment  expired,  and 
he  was  reelected  for  two  years.  In  1787  and  1788 

3  Hutchins,  43.  This  party  of  surveyors  was  composed  of  Benja- 
min Tupper,  (Mass.)  ;  William  Morris,  (N.  Y.) ;  Alexander  Parker, 
( Va.)  ;  James  Simpson,  (Md.)  ;  Robert  Johnson,  (Ga.)  ;  Isaac  Sher- 
man, (Conn.) ;  Absalom  Martin,  (N.  J.) ;  and  Edward  Dowse,  (N. 
H.).  J.,  IV,  700. 

4J.,  IV,  636.  6J.,   IV,   637. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     43 

he  was  engaged  on  two  surveys,  one  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts-New York  line,6  and  the  other  of  the  line 
between  these  States  and  the  public  lands,  so  that 
it  was  not  until  the  fall  of  1788  that  he  could  return 
to  the  land  surveys.  While  on  duty  there  he  was 
taken  ill  and  died  at  Pittsburg,  April  28,  1789.7 
The  surveys  of  the  "  seven  ranges  "  were  later  com- 
pleted, and  in  1800-1801  the  ranges  were  extended 
on  the  north  to  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Con- 
necticut reserve. 

The  surveys  had  taken  longer  than  had  been  ex- 
pected when  the  system  had  been  adopted  and  no 
land  could  be  sold  until  seven  ranges  had  been  com- 
pleted. The  hostile  Indians  who  prevented  the  sur-^ 
veys  also  would  have  checked  any  extensive  settle- 
ment, so  it  is  doubtful  if  the  delay  in  placing  the 
land  on  the  market  worked  any  hardship.  But  it 
is  easy  to  understand  how  Southern  members  could 
become  out  of  patience  with  what  seemed  to  them 
a  very  slow  system,  and  ready  to  support  any  plan 
of  alteration.  In  1786  two  efforts  were  made  to 
amend  the  Ordinance,  but  without  success.  As 
Grayson  wrote  to  Madison,  "  An  attempt  was 
made  to  change  the  system  altogether,  and  was 
negatived.  Indeed,  the  Eastern  and  some  other 
States  are  so  much  attached  to  it  that  I  am  afraid 
no  material  alteration  can  be  effected." 8  And  twice 
in  1787  were  attempts  made  by  Southern  members 

«  In  western  New  York,  Massachusetts  owned  the  land,  and  New 
York  held  the  sovereignly. 
7  Hutchins,  48.  8  May  28,  1786.  Ban.,  I,  508. 


44  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

to  introduce  "  indiscriminate  locations  "  in  the  un- 
surveyed  area,  but  New  England  and  some  of  the 
Middle  States  stood  firm.9  The  struggle  for  prior 
discriminate  surveys  was  by  no  means  finished  in 
1785;  it  had  to  be  fought  out  year  after  year  for 
ten  years  before  it  was  decisively  won. 

As  soon  as  the  plats  of  the  four  ranges  were  laid 
before  Congress  it  was  decided  to  proceed  with  the 
sale  of  these  lands  rather  than  wait  for  the  seven 
ranges  specified  in  the  Ordinance,  and,  in  asking 
the  Board  of  Treasury  to  report  a  plan  of  sale,  it 
showed  that  it  considered  the  method  outlined  there 
unsatisfactory  even  before  it  had  been  tried.  Act- 
ing on  the  report  of  the  Board,  it  abolished  the 
system  of  sales  in  the  thirteen  States10  and  pro- 
vided that  after  the  land  was  drawn  for  the  soldiers 
the  sales  would  take  place  at  the  seat  of  Congress.11 
Another  alteration  marked  the  first  step  in  the 
process  which  fastened  the  giving  of  credit  upon 
the  land  system,  until  it  was  finally  rooted  out  by 
strenuous  measures  in  1820.  Under  the  Ordinance 
the  land  purchased  must  be  paid  for  at  the  time  of 
sale  or  the  lands  be  resold,  but  by  the  amendment 
of  1787  one-third  of  the  purchase  money  must  be 
paid  immediately  and  the  balance  within  three 
months.  Failure  to  pay  the  balance  caused  a  for- 
feiture of  the  first  payment. 

Under  these  provisions,  between  September  21 
and  October  9,  1787,  some  108,431  acres  were  sold 

•  Cutler,  I,  126;  Madison  Writing,  II,  356;  Ban.,  II,  438. 
10  April  91,  1787.     J.,  IV,  739.  "  New    York. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     45 

at  auction  in  New  York,  for  $176,090.12  Of  these, 
35,457  acres,  purchased  for  $88,764,  were  later  for- 
feited, incurring  a  loss  of  $29,782. 13  So  actually 
only  72,974  acres  were  sold,  and  $117,108  received 
in  public  securities.  No  entire  townships  were 
sold. 

Among  the  explanations  advanced  for  these 
small  sales,  two  deserve  consideration.  In  the  first 
place,  the  sale  of  large  tracts  of  land  to  companies 
had  commenced,  and  this  withdrew  many  possible 
bidders  from  the  public  sales,  and,  in  addition,  the 
threatening  state  of  Indian  affairs  northwest  of  the 
Ohio  deterred  individual  investors.  Although  by 
the  second  treaty  of  Fort  Stanwix,  on  October  22, 
1784,  the  United  States  had  secured  a  cession  of 
the  claims  of  the  Six  Nations  to  territory  north  of 
the  Ohio,  yet  the  local  tribes  refused  to  be  bound 
by  the  action  of  their  former  overlords.  On  the 
21st  of  January  following,  a  treaty  signed  at  Fort 
Mclntosh  with  the  Wyandots,  Delawares,  Chip- 
pewas,  and  Ottawas,  marked  out  certain  lands  for 
their  use  and  vested  the  title  to  the  other  lands  in 

12  P.  L.,  Ill,  459. 

is  These  purchasers  tried  for  many  years  to  secure  some  com- 
pensation for  the  amount  which  they  had  forfeited.  Petitions  were 
presented  to  Congress  in  1799  and  in  1823.  In  the  latter  memorial 
the  claimants  dwelt  upon  the  reasonableness  of  their  request  be- 
cause the  land  sold  for  more  later,  and  because  they  were  unable 
to  complete  the  payments  as  they  were  building  a  ship  for  the 
China  trade  from  which  the  United  States  received  more  than 
$200,000  in  revenue.  In  1828,  when  relief  measures  were  the  order 
of  the  day,  an  act  provided  that  certificates  receivable  for  public 
lands  should  be  issued  for  all  sums  forfeited  through  failure  to 
complete  payments.  See  P.  L.,  Ill,  613. 


46  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

the  United  States.  But  this  treaty,  as  well  as  that 
of  1786  with  the  Shawnees,  was  not  respected  by 
the  various  tribes  of  the  Northwest,  and  so  the  In- 
dian title  was  still  in  dispute.  The  frontiersmen  of 
Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  and  the  Kentucky  country 
might  cross  the  Ohio  and  take  up  a  claim  by  "  tom- 
ahawk right," "  but  the  Eastern  settler  was  not 
ready  to  invest  his  money  in  so  dubious  a  venture, 
and  the  New  England  people  who  were  ready  to 
emigrate  were  being  interested  in  a  New  England 
enterprise,  the  "  Ohio  Company." 

In  order  to  drive  out  the  unauthorized  settlers 
who  were  locating  on  the  public  lands  and  jeop- 
ardizing the  peace  of  the  frontier,  Congress  twice, 
in  1787,  instructed  the  military  to  move  against 
them,  and  on  October  3  resolved  to  station  seven 
hundred  troops  on  the  frontier  "  to  protect  the  set- 
tlers on  the  public  lands  from  the  depredations  of 
the  Indians ;  to  facilitate  the  surveying  and  selling 
of  the  said  lands,  in  order  to  reduce  the  public 
debt  and  to  prevent  all  unwarrantable  intrusions 
thereon."  15  Under  these  instructions  a  detachment 
of  troops  moved  down  the  right  bank  of  the  Ohio, 
driving  out  the  settlers  and  burning  their  log 
cabins,  but  they  generally  returned  as  soon  as  it 
was  safe.16  At  this  time  troops  were  stationed  at 
the  following  frontier  forts :  Forts  Franklin,  Pitt, 
and  Mclntosh,  in  Pennsylvania;  Fort  Harmar,  at 
the  mouth  of  the  Muskingum;  Fort  Steuben,  at 

i*  Used  to  denote  a  claim  marked  out  with  blazed  trees. 
"  J.,  IV,  785.  16  Cutler,  I,  133. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     47 

the  Rapids  of  the  Ohio,  and  Post  Vincennes,  on 
the  Wabash.17 

The  last  changes  in  the  Ordinance  of  1785  were 
made  on  October  22,  1787,  when  two  military  re- 
serves were  set  apart  for  the  satisfaction  of  bounty 
warrants  in  lieu  of  the  method  provided  in  the  Or- 
dinance,18 and  on  July  7,  1788,  when  a  supplement 
to  the  Ordinance  was  passed  which  contained  the 
amendments  of  1787  as  to  the  sale  of  the  land,  but 
further  amended  it  to  permit  of  sales  at  New  York 
or  Philadelphia  or  other  places  as  the  Board  of 
Treasury  might  direct,  and  also  incorporated  the 
change  in  the  method  of  satisfying  the  military 
bounties.19  In  fact,  all  previous  purchasers  of 
land  were  permitted  to  make  payment  in  bounty 
warrants  up  to  one-seventh  of  the  amount.20  These 
were  the  last  amendments  passed  by  the  Old  Con- 
gress, and  it  held  fast  to  the  rectangular  surveys, 
but  by  this  time  its  interest  had  been  diverted  from 
the  operation  of  the  Ordinance  to  the  sales  of  large 
tracts  to  companies. 

The  first  of  these  sales  was  arranged  for  in  July, 
1787,  although  the  contract  was  not  signed  nor  the 
first  payment  made  until  October,  after  the  public 
sale  of  land  in  the  four  ranges.  The  story  of  the 
organization  of  the  Ohio  Company  can  only  be  out- 
lined here.21  The  founders,  Generals  Rufus  Put- 

"  J.,  IV,  875.  is  J.,  IV,  832.     See  Chap.  10. 

«  J.,  IV,  832. 

20  No   purchasers   availed  themselves  of  this  provision.    The  two 
land  companies  already  had  received  this  privilege. 

21  See:     Cutler,  I,  Chapters  5-8;  McMaster,  I,  505-515. 


48  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

nam  and  Benjamin  Tupper,  had  signed  the  sol- 
diers' petition  of  1785.  Tupper  had  helped  survey 
the  four  ranges  and  the  information  gained  at  that 
time  led  to  the  issuing  of  a  call  for  residents  of 
Massachusetts  wishing  to  purchase  lands  in  the 
Ohio  country  to  meet  in  their  respective  counties 
and  send  delegates  to  a  meeting  at  the  Bunch  of 
Grapes  Tavern,  in  Boston,  on  March  1,  1786.  On 
March  3,  Articles  of  Agreement  were  adopted  and 
subscription  books  were  opened  for  the  capital 
stock  of  $1,000,000  in  specie  certificates.  A  year 
later  the  subscriptions  amounted  to  $250,000,  and 
a  committee  of  three,  General  Samuel  Holden  Par- 
sons, General  Rufus  Putnam  and  the  Reverend 
Manasseh  Cutler,  were  appointed  to  make  applica- 
tion to  Congress  for  a  private  purchase  of  lands. 
The  memorial,  submitted  by  Parsons,  was  referred 
by  Congress  to  a  committee,  which  reported  on 
July  14,  1787.22 

Under  ordinary  circumstances  such  a  proposal 
would  doubtless  have  been  rejected,  for  it  called 
for  the  virtual  suspension  of  the  Land  Ordinance 
even  before  it  had  been  tried;  it  sought  the  corpo- 
rate ownership  of  an  immense  area  instead  of  the 
small  holdings  encouraged  by  the  Ordinance;  and 
by  offering  fifty  cents  an  acre  it  would  impair  the 
approaching  sale  of  the  four  ranges.  But  these 
were  no  ordinary  times.  The  finances  of  the  Con- 
federation were  in  a  wretched  state,  Shay's  Rebel- 
lion had  just  been  suppressed,  but  its  bitterness 

22  J.,  IV,  755. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     49 

still  lingered,  and  the  Federal  Convention  had  al- 
ready assembled  in  Philadelphia  for  the  purpose 
of  revising  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  pro- 
viding a  more  efficient  central  government.  From 
the  12th  of  May  to  July  6  Congress  met  from  day 
to  day  in  New  York  without  securing  a  quorum, 
due  to  delegates  attending  the  Convention  at  Phil- 
adelphia, but  on  the  13th  the  famous  Ordinance  of 
1787,  for  the  government  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  northwest  of  the  Ohio  River,  was 
passed.  On  the  next  day  the  committee  reported 
on  the  memorial  of  General  Parsons. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  offer  of  a  million 
dollars  for  Western  lands  seemed  somewhat  attrac- 
tive, yet  the  offer  was  not  promptly  accepted.  The 
Reverend  Manasseh  Cutler  had  been  selected  to 
see  the  measure  through  Congress,  and  from  the 
6th  to  the  llth  he  labored  in  New  York,  leaving 
there  for  a  visit  to  Philadelphia  while  the  govern- 
mental Ordinance  was  under  consideration.  When 
he  returned,  on  the  17th,  he  found  that  a  strong 
opposition  had  developed,  and,  therefore,  in  order 
to  force  matters,  he  announced  that  he  would  give 
up  the  whole  scheme  and  endeavor  to  purchase 
land  from  one  of  the  States.23  This  had  an  effect 
on  the  committee,  but  especially  on  Colonel  Duer, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Board,  who  broached  the 
subject  of  a  land  speculation  involving  "  the  prin- 
cipal characters  in  the  city,"  and  who  believed  that 
if  Cutler  would  extend  the  contract  and  take  in 

23  Cutler,  I,  294. 


50  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

another  company,  secretly,  the  grant  could  be  se- 
cured. This  advice  was  followed,  and  on  the  23d 
Congress  agreed  to  the  sale,24  but  the  terms  were 
not  considered  satisfactory  and  it  was  not  until 
Cutler  had  again  made  a  feint  at  giving  up  the 
matter  that  a  satisfactory  arrangement  was  made.25 
As  only  eight  States  were  represented  in  Congress 
at  this  time,  and  as  seven  were  needed  to  pass  the 
measure,  it  required  considerable  diplomacy,  if 
nothing  else,  to  secure  a  favorable  consideration. 
Aside  from  the  "  land  speculation,"  26  Cutler  states 
that  the  matter  was  favored  by  his  coming  out  for 
General  St.  Clair,  then  President  of  Congress, 
for  Governor  of  the  new  Northwest  Territory, 
although  St.  Clair's  biographer  questions  the 
charge.27  If  the  measure  had  failed,  it  was  ar- 
ranged that  Sargent  should  go  to  Maryland  and 
secure  a  representation  favorable  to  the  plan,  while 
Cutler  should  visit  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island, 
these  States  being  at  the  time  unrepresented  in 
Congress.28  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  in- 
terests of  the  Ohio  Company  were  well  looked  after 
by  the  Reverend  Manasseh  Cutler. 

On  October  27  Cutler  and  Sargent  signed  two 
contracts,  one  for  the  Ohio  Company,  and  the  other, 
an  option  to  purchase,  for  the  Scioto  Company. 
The  former  was  supposed  to  cover  1,500,000  acres, 

2*  J.,  IV,  App.  17.  **  J.,  IV,  App.  18. 

26 "  Without  connecting  this  speculation  similar  terms  and  ad- 
vantages could  not  have  been  obtained  for  the  Ohio  Company." 
Cutler,  I,  305. 

2T  St.  Clair,  I,  126.  as  Cutler,  I,  303. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     51 

and  the  latter  about  5,000,000.  These  tracts  lay 
between  the  Seven  Ranges  and  the  Scioto  and  on 
the  Ohio  River.  In  each  case  the  exterior  lines  of 
the  survey  were  to  be  run  by  the  United  States, 
but  the  companies  were  to  run  the  interior  lines 
according  to  the  Ordinance  of  1785.  In  each  town- 
ship section  sixteen  was  to  be  reserved  for  educa- 
tion, and  sections  eight,  eleven,  and  twenty-six,  for 
the  future  disposition  of  Congress,  and  in  addition 
section  twenty-nine  was  to  be  given  perpetually  for 
religion — this  was  a  New  England  feature  which 
had  failed  of  passage  in  the  Land  Ordinance.  An 
entirely  new  provision  was  the  grant  of  two  town- 
ships for  a  university.  These  large  donations  of 
land  doubtless  caused  some  of  the  opposition  to  the 
grant.  The  price  of  the  land  was  that  fixed  in  the 
Land  Ordinance,  one  dollar  per  acre,  considerably 
more  than  the  company  had  intended  to  pay.  As 
payments  might  be  made  in  government  paper,  and 
as  one-third  of  a  dollar  per  acre  was  allowed  for  bad 
land  and  incidental  charges,  the  nominal  price  was 
reduced  to  sixty-six  and  two-thirds  cents  an  acre, 
while  the  actual  price  was  only  eight  or  nine  cents, 
as  the  certificates  of  indebtedness  were  then  worth 
only  about  twelve  cents  on  the  dollar.  Military 
bounty  rights  could  be  offered  up  to  one-seventh  of 
the  whole  amount. 

The  first  terms  proposed  by  Congress  required 
a  payment  of  $500,000  with  the  signing  of  the  con- 
tract and  the  balance  when  the  survey  of  the  exte- 
rior lines  was  completed,  but  Cutler  and  Sargent 


52  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

were  unwilling  to  have  their  sound  Ohio  Company 
jeopardized  by  the  speculating  Scioto  Company,  so 
they  insisted  that  $500,000  be  paid  with  the  con- 
tract, $500,000  with  the  survey,  and  the  balance  in 
six  equal  payments,29  while  a  deed  for  $1,000,000 
worth  of  land  was  to  pass  when  that  amount  had 
been  paid.  Other  deeds  were  to  pass  as  agreed 
upon  later,  while  a  right  of  entry  and  occupancy 
was  allowed  on  part  of  the  tract  until  the  deed 
could  pass.  At  the  time  it  was  believed  that  the 
two  tracts  would  bring  in  to  the  treasury  $2,993,- 
154  in  certificates  of  indebtedness,  while  bounty 
land  warrants  for  six  or  seven  hundred  thousand 
acres  would  be  satisfied  as  well.30 

The  success  of  the  Ohio  Company  encouraged 
some  typical  land  speculators  to  seek  Congress 
lands  at  two-thirds  of  a  dollar  an  acre.  John  Cleve 
Symmes,  who  had  represented  New  Jersey  in  Con- 
gress in  1785-9,  petitioned  for  one  million  acres  be- 
tween the  Great  and  Little  Miami  rivers,  on  the 
Ohio.  He  desired  the  same  terms  as  those  granted 
Cutler  and  Sargent,  but  would  accept  a  single 
township  for  an  "  academy."  Congress  referred 
the  petition  to  the  Board  of  Treasury  to  "  take 
order."31 

In  the  meanwhile  Royal  Flint  and  Joseph 
Parker  and  their  associates  had  sought  two  tracts,32 
one  of  two  million  acres  on  the  Ohio,  and  another 
of  one  million  on  the  Mississippi.  As  the  Indian 

a»  "  Half  yearly  "  added  by  Congress,      so  J.,  IV,  871. 
si  J.,  IV,  App.  18.     Aug.  29,  1787.          82  J.,  IV,  App.  19. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     53 

title  had  not  been  extinguished  in  this  region,  the 
petitioners  desired  to  purchase  the  Indian  rights 
themselves  and  receive  four  townships  of  land, 
92,160  acres,  in  full  compensation.  But  Congress 
resolved,  on  October  22,  that  no  land  should  be 
sold  until  the  Indian  title  was  extinguished  by  the 
United  States,33  and  the  next  day  passed  a  general 
resolution  covering  the  two  applications  then  be- 
fore it,  as  well  as  others  to  come.34  This  author- 
ized the  Board  of  Treasury  to  contract  with  any 
persons  for  the  sale  of  land  which  was  free  of  In- 
dian claims,  but  no  tract  was  to  be  less  than  a  mil- 
lion acres  nor  to  extend  more  than  one-third  of  its 
depth  along  the  Ohio,  Mississippi,  Wabash  or  Illi- 
nois rivers.  The  terms  were  to  be  similar  to  those 
granted  to  Cutler  and  Sargent,  but  there  were  to 
be  no  donations  for  seminaries  unless  the  contract 
called  for  an  amount  equal  to  their  purchase,  and, 
finally,  the  tract  must  be  in  a  different  State. 

The  next  year  George  Morgan  and  his  associates 
sought  a  tract  on  the  Mississippi  to  the  south  of 
that  desired  by  Flint  and  Parker.  In  this  case, 
also,  the  Indian  title  had  to  be  extinguished,  but  a 
sale  was  authorized,35  the  final  payments  not  to  be 
made  until  after  the  government  had  quieted  the 
title.36 

83  J.,  IV,  App.   19. 

84  J.,  IV,  802. 

as  June  20,  1788.     J.,  IV,  823. 

8«  Royal  Flint  was  a  prominent  merchant  in  New  York  city  who 
had  served  as  paymaster  in  the  Revolution.  He  was  a  leading  mem- 
ber of  the  Scioto  Company  and  was  to  have  represented  it  abroad. 


54  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

ijPj 

If  these  applications  for  about  5,000,000  acres 
had  been  carried  through,  it  would  have  meant  a 
reduction  of  $3,000,000  in  the  domestic  debt,  and 
the  satisfaction  of  another  half-million  acres  of 
military  warrants.  Only  one,  however,  resulted  in 
a  sale,  and  on  October  15,  1788,  Symmes  signed  a 
contract  for  one  million  acres  of  land  on  the  east 
side  of  the  Great  Miami.  The  terms  were  similar 
to  those  obtained  by  Cutler  and  Sargent,  but  no 
donation  was  made  for  a  seminary.37  A  first  pay- 
ment of  $82,198,  one-seventh  in  military  rights  and 
the  rest  in  public  securities,  was  made;  a  similar 
amount  was  due  within  a  month  after  the  survey 
of  the  external  lines;  and  the  balance  in  six 
equal  semi-annual  payments.  The  total  payment, 
exclusive  of  military  rights,  was  estimated  at 
$571,437.38 

The  engagements  entered  into  by  Cutler  and 
Sargent  and  by  Symmes,  and  the  other  large  con- 
tracts pending,  seemed  to  point  to  the  rapid  extin- 
guishment of  the  domestic  debt  and  were  used  as 
Federal  arguments  during  the  struggle  for  the  rati- 
fication of  the  Constitution.  The  Ohio  Company 
at  once  began  to  survey  and  settle  its  lands.  In 
December,  General  Putnam  led  the  first  party  to 
the  Ohio,  arriving  at  Fort  Harmar  on  April  7, 

His  ill-health  led  to  the  appointment  of  Joel  Barlow. — Cutler,  I, 
498. 

Colonel  George  Morgan  was  an  Indian  agent  of  the  United  States 
during  the  Revolution.  He  was  interested  in  the  old  Indiana  Com- 
pany and  had  petitioned  Congress  in  its  behalf. 

STP.  L.,  I,   127.  SB  j.,   IV,  871. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     55 

1788.  The  city,  later  called  Marietta,  was  laid  out. 
Symmes,  who  had  been  elected  one  of  the  judges 
for  the  new  territory  on  February  19,  1788,  crossed 
the  mountains  in  August,  and  settlers  were  on  his 
tract  even  before  his  contract  was  signed.39 

With  the  first  ratifications  of  the  new  Constitu- 
tion the  public  credit  began  to  improve;  the  all 
but  worthless  securities  began  to  rise  in  value,  which 
served  to  increase  the  cost  of  Western  lands;  not 
only  did  further  applications  for  tracts  cease,  but 
the  existing  contractors  found  themselves  embar- 
rassed by  the  improved  credit  of  the  nation  and  by 
the  Indian  wars  which  soon  broke  out.  Instead  of 
the  contracts  being  carried  out  in  due  course  and 
without  question,  they  became  a  source  of  trouble 
under  the  new  government,  and  doubtless  served  to 
render  that  form  of  disposition  of  the  public  do- 
main undesirable.  This  is  perhaps  the  best  place 
to  summarize  the  later  history  of  these  sales,  even 
though  the  sequence  of  events  is  broken,  for  it  was 
almost  fifteen  years  after  the  contract  with 
Symmes  that  the  last  legislation  affecting  his  tract 
was  passed. 

In  March,  1792,  the  Ohio  Company  presented  to 
Congress  a  memorial  asking  relief,  and  General 
Putnam,  Manasseh  Cutler  and  Robert  Oliver  jour- 
neyed to  Philadelphia  to  add  their  personal  repre- 
sentations.40 The  company  stated  that  it  had  al- 
ready paid  $500,000  for  the  land,  equal  to  thirty- 
three  and  one-third  cents  an  acre,  but  in  the  last 

ae  Cutler,   I,  415.  *o  Cutler,   I,   471. 


56  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

few  years  the  rise  in  the  value  of  securities,  the  suf- 
fering, distress  and  expense  occasioned  by  the  In- 
dian wars,41  the  donations  of  land  to  settlers  who 
would  perform  military  service,42  and  the  prevail- 
ing belief  that  Congress  was  about  to  reduce  the 
price  of  Western  lands,  had  combined  to  threaten 
the  company  with  ruin.  The  external  surveys  had 
just  been  completed,  and  the  second  payment  of 
half  a  million  would  soon  be  due.  If  this  amount 
was  not  forthcoming,  the  land  and  all  the  improve- 
ments would  be  forfeited  and  the  settlement  broken 
up,  for  the  company  had  received  no  deed  as  yet, 
nor  could  any  pass  until  a  million  dollars  had  been 
paid.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  memorial 
prayed  that  the  land  might  be  granted  the  com- 
pany at  fifty  cents  an  acre  instead  of  the  sixty-six 
and  two-thirds  of  the  contract. 

Congress  took  a  broad  view  of  the  situation  and 
at  once  decided  that  the  settlement  should  be  main- 
tained, and  that  as  a  specific  performance  of  the 
contract  was  beyond  the  means  of  the  company, 
then  some  alteration  should  be  made.  In  fact,  the 
House  Committee  reported  that  the  company  had 
probably  paid  already  as  much  as  Congress  would 
charge  for  Western  lands  in  the  future.43  The  re- 
lief bill  was  passed,  after  amendment  in  the  Senate, 
the  casting-vote  of  the  Vice-President,  Adams,  be- 
ing necessary  to  carry  the  donation  of  one  hundred 
thousand  acres.44 

41  $33,000.  48  Cutler,  I,  479. 

<2  About    90,000    acres.  44  Annals,   1791-3,   123. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     57 

This  act  of  April  21, 1792,45  authorized  the  Pres- 
ident to  issue  letters  patent  to  the  Ohio  Company 
for  three  tracts  of  land,  one  for  750,000  acres  with- 
out further  charge,  one  for  214,285  acres  to  be  cov- 
ered by  military  warrants,  and  one  for  100,000 
acres  to  be  granted  by  the  company  in  one-hundred- 
acre  lots  to  male  settlers  eighteen  years  of  age  or 
over.  It  was  provided  that  reservations  for  educa- 
tion and  religion  should  be  continued  in  the  first 
tract,  but  nothing  was  said  about  them  in  the  other 
two.46 

The  Ohio  Company,  therefore,  received  750,000 
acres  in  return  for  $500,000  in  Continental  securi- 
ties worth  about  twelve  and  a  half  cents  to  the 
dollar.  And  for  the  other  214,285  acres  bounty 
land  warrants  were  actually  presented  for  only 
142,900  acres,  or  at  the  rate  of  one  and  one-half 
acres  of  land  for  each  acre  called  for  in  the  war- 
rants. The  one  hundred  thousand  acre  tract  for 
donations  has  not  generally  been  charged  against 
the  company,  but  has  been  considered  a  national 
grant  for  the  encouragement  of  settlement  on  the 
frontier.  These  figures  show  that  the  Ohio  Com- 
pany could  compete  very  successfully  when  the  na- 
tional lands  were  placed  on  sale  at  two  dollars  an 
acre.  All  things  considered,  in  spite  of  the  inter- 
ference with  the  general  disposal  of  lands,  the  sale 
to  the  Ohio  Company  was  to  be  commended.  It 

451792,  Chap.  25. 

*•  The  Ohio-  Company  later  petitioned  for  these  reserves — having 
granted  lands  of  their  own  for  those  purposes — but  without  suc- 
cess. P.  L.,  I,  255. 


58  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

extinguished  half  a  million  of  the  debt  at  a  time 
when  the  treasury  was  all  but  bankrupt;  it  was  a 
concrete  example  of  the  wealth  of  the  Western 
lands;  it  seemed  to  pave  the  way  for  other  remun- 
erative sales,  and,  better  than  all  this,  it  placed  on 
the  frontier  a  most  desirable  body  of  settlers,  many 
of  them  veterans  of  the  Revolution. 

Cutler  and  Sargent  also  signed  a  contract  in 
1787  on  behalf  of  the  Scioto  Company.  The 
troubled  history  of  that  ill-starred  speculation  can- 
not be  dwelt  upon  here.  No  formal  organization 
was  ever  effected,  but  shares  in  the  five-million-acre 
preemption  were  divided  among  Cutler,  Sargent, 
Duer,  Tupper,  Putnam,  Flint,  and  others,  and  Joel 
Barlow  was  sent  to  Europe  to  dispose  of  the  land 
to  investors  there.47  As  no  payment  was  due  Con- 
gress until  the  survey  was  run,  the  promoters  be- 
lieved that  they  would  by  that  time  have  sufficient 
funds  to  make  the  successive  payments  and  clear  a 
neat  profit,  and  under  normal  conditions  they 
doubtless  would  have  been  successful.  Barlow  suc- 
ceeded in  selling  the  rights  to  three  million  acres  to 
a  company  organized  in  Paris,  but  it  was  permitted 
to  resell  all  or  part  of  the  tract,  although  it  actually 
could  deal  in  nothing  but  "  rights."  The  outbreak 
of  the  French  Revolution  turned  a  royalist  emi- 
gration to  America,  and  among  these  unfortunates 
sales  were  rapidly  effected,  although  the  titles  were 
bad  on  their  very  face.  Several  hundred  emigrants 

•"  See  E.  C.  Dawes,  History  of  the  Scioto  Purchase,  in  Cutler,  I, 
494-524. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     59 

sailed  for  America  early  in  1790.  The  difficulties 
of  settlement  in  the  northwest  which  embarrassed 
the  Ohio  Company  also  disorganized  the  less  wisely 
managed  undertaking.  In  October  the  first  emi- 
grants were  settled  within  the  Ohio  Company's 
lands  at  Gallipolis,  while  the  Indian  war  prevented 
further  surveys  of  their  tracts.  The  conditions  on 
the  frontier  were  bad  enough,  but  the  final  blow 
fell  when  Duer  and  Flint,  the  leading  backers  of 
the  company,  failed  in  New  York  in  April,  1792. 
Then  all  hope  of  securing  title  to  the  grant  van- 
ished. No  money  had  been  paid  by  the  company 
because  none  was  due  until  after  the  survey  had 
been  filed.  The  preemption  simply  lapsed,  and  the 
French  settlers  had  neither  money  nor  land.  The 
donation  clause  in  the  Ohio  Company's  bill  was  ex- 
pected to  relieve  their  distress,  and  in  1795  it  was 
extended  to  them,  while  at  the  same  time  Congress 
passed  a  specific  relief  act  granting  24,000  acres  to 
the  French  inhabitants  of  Gallipolis  on  condition  of 
settlement  within  five  years  and  five-year  resi- 
dence.48 These  conditions  of  settlement  were 
waived  in  1806.  This  grant  was  divided  into  lots 
of  two  hundred  and  seventeen  and  two-fifth  acres 
among  ninety-two  French  settlers,  while  M.  Ger- 
vais  received  four  thousand  acres.49  An  additional 
grant  of  twelve  hundred  acres  was  made  by  Con- 
gress in  1798. 

In  this  way  the  great  purchase  of  the  Scioto 
Company,  welcomed  as  an  aid  to  the  struggling 

48  March   3,   1795.    Chap.   49.  *»  Cutler,    I,   523. 


60  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

national  credit,  in  which  so  many  "  of  the  principal 
characters  of  America  "  were  interested,  and  with- 
out which  the  sound  purchase  of  the  Ohio  Company 
could  hardly  have  been  effected,  resulted  in  the 
duping  of  too  guileless  emigrants  and  in  a  donation 
of  land  by  a  sympathetic  Congress  from  a  rich  do- 
main. 

The  Symmes  purchase  caused  even  more  ex- 
tended Congressional  action.  Under  his  contract 
the  tract  would  have  been  a  long  strip,  twenty  miles 
wide,  running  along  the  Great  Miami,  north  from 
the  Ohio.  Before  the  survey  was  completed, 
Symmes  had  proceeded  to  grant  lands  along  the 
Little  Miami,  beyond  his  limits,  and  Governor  St. 
Clair  had  warned  prospective  purchasers,  as  well  as 
prohibited  further  location  upon  the  lands  in  dis- 
pute.50 Congress,  however,  agreed  in  1792  to  have 
the  terms  of  the  contract  altered  so  as  to  cover  the 
land  between  the  Great  and  Little  Miamis,51  and 
shortly  after  passed  a  relief  measure  similar  to  that 
for  the  Ohio  Company.52  This  permitted  Symmes 
to  receive  a  patent  for  as  much  land  as  he  had 
already  made  payments,  and  also  allowed  him  to 
take  up  106,857  acres  under  military  rights.  The 
act  also  granted  to  Symmes  and  his  associates  a 
township  for  an  academy  and  other  seminaries  of 
learning,  for  although  Symmes  had  sought  such  a 
grant  in  1787,  it  had  not  been  made  because  his 
tract  was  so  much  smaller  than  the  Cutler- Sargent 

50  St.   Clair,   II,  209.  "  April  12,  1792. 

52  May  5,  1792,  Chap.  30. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     61 

purchase.  Letters  patent,  therefore,  issued  in  1794 
for  311,682  acres,  including  the  five  reserved  sec- 
tions in  each  township  and  the  township  granted 
for  the  academy,  and  at  the  same  time  Symmes 
quit-claimed  his  rights  to  all  the  lands  remaining  in 
his  former  contract.  When  this  patent  was  ana- 
lyzed it  appeared  that,  aside  from  the  reserves, 
Symmes  received  248,540  acres  of  land,  and  of 
these,  105,683  were  covered  by  the  $70,455  in  pub- 
lic securities  paid  in  1788,  while  142,857  acres  were 
paid  for  with  military  warrants.  In  the  latter  case, 
instead  of  setting  an  acre,  as  called  for  by  the  mili- 
tary warrants,  off  against  an  acre  of  land,  the  treas- 
ury reckoned  the  warrants  as  being  worth  one 
dollar  an  acre  and  accepted  them  in  exchange  for 
land  at  two-thirds  of  a  dollar,  so  that  warrants  for 
only  95,250  acres  were  satisfied.53 

The  patent  of  1794,  favorable  as  it  was  to 
Symmes,  did  not  satisfy  him.  He  soon  claimed  the 
right  to  complete  payments  on  the  balance  of  his 
original  million-acre  contract,  and,  while  his  memo- 
rials were  before  Congress,  he  proceeded  to  sell  as 
much  land  as  he  could  between  the  two  Miamis. 
For  several  years  Congress  had  to  consider  his 
claims  and  the  claims  of  those  who  had  purchased 
land  from  him  beyond  the  limits  of  his  patent.  The 
question  was  a  complicated  one.  In  amending  the 
terms  of  the  original  contract,  Congress  had  as- 
sumed that  one  million  acres  were  contained  be- 
tween the  two  Miamis,  and  Symmes  claimed  that 

53  See  P.  L.,  I,  75,  104,   127. 


62  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

he  had  only  quit-claimed  his  rights  to  any  land  in 
the  former  contract  not  covered  by  the  altered 
bounds.  But  when  the  surveys  were  run  it  was 
found  that  only  about  543,950  acres  lay  between 
the  two  rivers.  In  short,  Congress  took  the  posi- 
tion that  Symmes  had  given  up  all  claim  to  the 
land  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  second  contract,  and 
that  he  had  forfeited  his  rights  to  the  balance  of 
the  lands  within  it  because  of  his  failure  to  make 
the  proper  payments.  But  Congress  was  not  will- 
ing to  deal  harshly  with  the  innocent  purchasers 
from  Symmes.  In  the  case  of  the  French  settlers 
at  Gallipolis,  who  were  in  similar  circumstances, 
Congress  had  made  donations  of  land,  but  the  pur- 
chasers from  Symmes  were  not  looked  upon  as  ob- 
jects of  charity.  Congress  only  granted  them  a 
preemption  of  their  lands  at  the  minimum  price  of 
two  dollars  an  acre,  but  allowed  two  years  for  the 
payment,  instead  of  the  one  year's  credit  then  in 
vogue.54  Additional  acts  in  1801,  1802,  1803,  and 
1804,  were  necessary  because  Symmes  had  contin- 
ued to  make  sales,  and  under  these  acts  the  credit 
period  of  four  years  was  allowed,  as  under  the 
amended  general  land  system.  For  several  years 
Symmes  sought  permission  to  carry  out  the  terms 
of  his  original  contract  and  to  complete  the  pay- 
ments for  one  million  acres,  but  in  spite  of  the  ex- 
pense and  hardship  incurred  in  founding  his  settle- 
ment and  his  later  broken  fortunes,  Congress  did 
not  see  its  way  to  grant,  as  an  act  of  grace  and  not 

B*  March  2,  1799,  Chap.  34. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     63 

of  right,  the  privilege  of  buying  lands  at  two-thirds 
of  a  dollar,  which  would,  under  the  existing  land 
system,  be  sold  for  at  least  two  dollars  an  acre. 

A  summary  of  the  actual  workings  of  these  sales 
to  companies  under  the  Confederation  is  of  value. 
At  the  time  it  was  expected  that  the  two  Cutler- 
Sargent  contracts  would  realize  three  million  dol- 
lars in  securities  and  satisfy  some  six  or  seven  hun- 
dred thousand  acres  of  military  bounty  warrants. 
The  Symmes  purchase  was  estimated  at  $571,437 
and  143,000  acres  in  bounties. 

Warrants 
Acres  Securities         (Apreg) 

Ohio  Company   750,000  $500,000 

214,285  142,900 

100,000  (donation) 

Scioto  Company    25,200  (donation) 

Symmes    105,683  70,455 

142,857  95,250 


1,338,025  $570,455  238,150 

As  commercial  transactions,  these  sales  could 
hardly  be  considered  successful,  but  what  the  na- 
tion lost  in  money  it  gained  in  men,  and  the  Ohio 
Company  certainly  justified  its  existence  and 
served  to  raise  the  value  of  the  public  lands  adjoin- 
ing its  frontier  settlements. 

One  other  large  land  sale  under  the  Confedera- 
tion should  be  considered  here,  and  in  this  case  the 
purchaser  was  one  of  the  Confederated  States. 
When  the  western  boundary  of  New  York,  under 
the  cessions  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts,  was 


64  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

determined,  it  was  found  that  a  tract  of  some  200,- 
000  acres  lay  within  the  public  domain  bounded  by 
New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Lake  Erie.  Con- 
gress decided,  in  1788,  to  have  the  tract  surveyed 
and  disposed  of  at  private  sale  for  not  less  than 
three-fourths  of  a  dollar  the  acre,85  and  Pennsyl- 
vania offered  to  purchase  the  triangle  at  that  price, 
thus  securing  an  increased  frontage  on  Lake  Erie. 
The  offer  was  accepted  by  the  Board  of  Treasury, 
and  on  September  4  Congress  transferred  the  gov- 
ernment and  jurisdiction  of  the  tract  to  Pennsyl- 
vania, in  addition  to  the  land.59  The  reason  for 
this  relinquishment  of  jurisdiction  over  land  ceded 
by  other  States  was  simply  because  the  triangle  was 
cut  off  from  the  rest  of  the  Northwest  Territory 
by  the  Connecticut  Reserve.  At  the  time  it  was 
not  expected  that  Connecticut  would  later  cede  the 
jurisdiction  over  her  tract  to  the  nation,  therefore 
it  was  expedient  to  have  Pennsylvania  extend  her 
government  over  the  isolated  region.  New  York 
could  have  secured  the  region  had  she  cared  to  bid 
for  it,  but  she  already  possessed  a  considerable  strip 
of  the  lake  shore.  Pennsylvania  paid  $151,640.25 
for  the  202,187  acres,  and  the  letters  patent  were 
issued  in  1792.57 

BSJune   6,    J.,    IV,   820.  »«  J.,  IV,  864. 

BT  January    3,    1792,    Chap.    4. 


UNDER    THE    CONFEDERATION,    1787-1789     65 


DISPOSAL  OF  PUBLIC  LANDS 
UNDER  THE  CONFEDERATION 


Acres 

1787,  Sales    at    New   York    ....  72,974 
Ohio   Company    964,285 

1788,  Symmes    248,540 

Pennsylvania    202,187 


1,487,986 


Securities 

$117,108 

500,000 

70,455 

151,640 

$839,203 


Bounty 

Warrants 

(Acres) 

142,900 
95,250 

238,150 


MILITABY  BOUNTIES. 

RESEEVES  : 

For  education. 

For  religion. 

For  Christian  Indians. 

DONATIONS  : 

Settlers  in  Ohio  Company  tract 100,000 

French   settlers   at  Gallipolis 25,200 

Canadian    refugees    58,640 

French  settlers  at  Vincennes,  Kaskaskia,  etc. 

Arnold   Henry  Dohrman 22,400 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  LAND  SYSTEM,  1789-1800 

When  the  first  Congress  under  the  Constitution 
assembled  in  March,  1789,  it  was  to  be  expected 
that  some  of  its  time  would  be  devoted  to  the  man- 
agement of  the  western  lands.  The  dissolution  of 
the  old  Board  of  Treasury,  the  recent  death  of  the 
Geographer,  and  the  necessity  of  completing  some 
of  the  surveys  rendered  some  action  desirable. 
Those  who  were  most  interested  wondered  whether 
Congress  would  simply  endorse  and  continue  the 
land  Ordinance  of  1785  as  it  was  about  to  do  in  the 
case  of  the  governmental  ordinance  of  1787,  or 
whether  it  would  further  modify  its  provisions.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  no  general  land  legislation  was 
passed  until  1796,  and  in  the  meanwhile  no  land 
was  offered  at  public  sale.  During  those  years 
many  attempts  were  made  to  pass  a  land  law  but 
each  time  without  success,  and  it  was  well  that  such 
was  the  case  for  these  proposals  would  have  estab- 
lished a  very  different  system  from  the  sound  one 
of  1785.  For  this  reason  the  deliberations  of  Con- 
gress between  1787  and  1796  merit  careful  consid- 
eration, and  at  times  it  looked  as  if  the  existing  land 
system,  with  its  rectangular  surveys,  was  about  to 
be  abandoned. 

66 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  67 

The  first  debates  in  the  House  disclosed  a  desire 
for  a  new  system,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  exist- 
ing Ordinance  was  based  upon  a  compromise.  Mr. 
Scott,  of  the  western  counties  of  Pennsylvania,  led 
the  movement  for  a  new  act.  He  took  the  position 
that  Congress  must  act  speedily  in  regard  to  the 
public  lands.  The  surveys  called  for  in  the  con- 
tracts with  the  companies  must  be  completed,  for 
otherwise  the  second  payments  would  not  be  made. 
And  he  would  remodel  the  whole  system.  He  was 
opposed  to  the  system  of  large  sales  in  million  acre 
tracts,  he  objected  to  the  great  cost  of  the  surveys 
under  the  existing  system,  he  would  sell  the  land  in 
small  quantities  and  the  purchasers  then  should  pay 
the  cost  of  the  surveys.1 

He  further  believed  that  a  land  office  should  be 
opened  near  the  public  lands  where  only  certificates 
of  indebtedness  would  be  received,  and  he  an- 
nounced that  it  was  useless  to  attempt  to  drive  set- 
tlers off  the  lands,  instead,  preemption  should  be 
granted  them.  Finally,  he  recognized  that  favor- 
able measures  toward  the  pioneers  would  meet  with 
disfavor  in  the  Eastern  states  because  of  the  drain 
of  population  caused  by  the  new  settlements,  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  if  Government  did  not  encour- 
age an  orderly  settlement  of  these  people  they 
would  surely  move  across  the  Mississippi  where  the 

i  He  stated  that  20,690  "  specie  dollars "  had  been  paid  for 
2091  miles  of  surveying.  "  Congress  had  better  give  away  their 
lands  to  those  who  will  take  and  settle  them  than  pay  it"  Annals, 
1789-90,  629. 


68  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

Spanish  government  was  offering  favorable  terms 
to  settlers. 

Several  members  took  exception  to  some  of  Mr. 
Scott's  recommendations,  and  Mr.  Sherman,  of 
Connecticut,  took  the  New  England  position  that 
settlements  should  be  extended  gradually,  in  com- 
pact bodies,  that  it  was  better  to  settle  by  town- 
ships, even  giving  some  of  the  lots  to  settlers,  and, 
above  all,  the  surveys  should  be  retained,  for  the 
lack  of  them  would  cause  the  choice  of  the  best  land, 
irregularity  of  settlement,  disputes  and  eternal 
lawsuits.  Mr.  Scott  replied  that  the  township  sys- 
tem was  unnecessary  and  ill-adapted  to  the  western 
conditions. 

After  further  debate  a  committee  was  appointed 
to  bring  in  a  bill  providing  for  the  establishment  of 
a  land  office,  regulating  the  terms  and  manner  of 
granting  land,  limiting  the  amount  to  be  granted  to 
any  one  person,  establishing  a  price  per  acre,  and 
granting  preemption  to  actual  settlers.2  Mr.  Scott, 
as  chairman  of  the  Committee,  reported  such  a  bill, 
but  it  did  not  proceed  beyond  a  second  reading.  No 
further  action  was  taken  at  the  first  session  to  pro- 
vide for  a  general  sale  of  lands. 

At  the  next  session  the  land  question  came  up 
during  the  first  month  in  an  interesting  way.  A 
certain  Hannibal  W.  Dobbyn,  of  the  "  kingdom  of 
Ireland,"  presented  a  petition  for  leave  to  purchase 
fifty  thousand  acres  in  one  tract,  paying  one-third 
down,  one-third  in  seven  years,  and  one-third  in 

2  Annals,  1789-90,  665-6. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  69 

twelve  years,  with  interest  at  six  per  cent.3  The 
House  referred  the  memorial  to  a  committee,  whose 
report  caused  a  general  debate.  Mr.  Scott  favored 
the  petition,  but  it  soon  was  evident  that  the  House 
was  in  no  mood  to  enter  upon  a  land- jobbing  busi- 
ness without  careful  consideration.  As  Mr.  Boudi- 
not,  of  New  Jersey,  said:  "  The  business  of  selling 
lands  was  of  considerable  consequence;  if  it  was 
properly  managed  it  might  be  a  productive  source 
for  the  extinguishment  of  the  national  debt;  but 
much  depended  on  the  manner  of  setting  out.  If 
they  went  into  a  desultory  mode  of  selling  lands 
they  might  do  material  injury.  He  wished  a  gen- 
eral and  systematic  plan  might  be  adopted,  which 
should  not  be  receded  from." 4  He  suggested  that 
the  report  be  referred  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury. Mr.  Sedgwick,  of  Massachusetts,  wished  to 
broaden  the  object  of  the  reference  and  request  the 
secretary  to  report  general  regulations  for  the  dis- 
tribution of  lands  and  he  looked  far  into  the  future 
when  he  said :  "  He  was  decidedly  opposed  to  sell- 
ing lands,  unless  the  whole  of  the  purchase  money 
was  paid  down.  He  would  never  consent  to  make 
individuals  debtors  to  the  Union,  because  it  tended 
to  weaken  the  hands  of  the  government.  If  they 
received  but  one-third  of  the  payment,  he  should 
look  upon  the  other  two-thirds  as  relinquished." 
After  several  other  members  had  expressed  similar 
views,  the  House  voted  to  have  the  report  lie  upon 

»  Jan.  18,  1790.    Annals,  1789-90,  1061. 
*  Annals,  1789-90,  1069. 


70  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

the  table,  and  to  request  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  prepare  a  uniform  plan  of  disposal. 

This  was  the  second  of  the  important  reports 
which  Alexander  Hamilton  prepared  at  the  request 
of  the  first  Congresses.  His  First  Report  on  Public 
Credit,  prepared  in  response  to  the  resolution  of 
the  House  of  September  21,  1789,  had  been  pre- 
sented on  January  14,  but  had  not  been  taken  up 
when  the  present  reference  was  voted.  In  that 
report,  among  other  proposals,  he  suggested  the 
payment  of  the  domestic  debt  partly  in  land  at  the 
rate  of  twenty  cents  an  acre.5  Hamilton  now  turned 
to  this  new  duty  and  six  months  later  presented  his 
"  Report  of  a  Uniform  System  for  the  Disposition 
of  the  Lands,  the  Property  of  the  United  States." 6 

In  preparing  this  report  Hamilton  proceeded  as 
if  no  land  system  existed.  He  simply  dismissed  the 
Ordinance  of  1785  without  consideration  and  out- 
lined a  different  system.  In  studying  the  ques- 
tion Hamilton  found  "two  leading  objects  of  con- 
sideration: one,  the  facility  of  advantageous  sales, 
according  to  the  probable  course  of  purchasers ;  the 
other  the  accommodation  of  individuals  now  inhabit- 
ing the  western  country  or  who  may  hereafter  emi- 
grate thither.  The  former,  as  an  operation  of  finance, 
claims  primary  attention."  He  came  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  there  would  be  three  classes  of  purchasers 
of  western  lands:  "moneyed  individuals  and  com- 
panies who  will  buy  to  sell  again;  associations  of 

»  Finance,  I,  15-25. 

«  P.  L.  I,  8.     Hamilton's  Works,  viii,  87.    Donaldson,  198. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  71 

persons  who  intend  to  make  settlements  themselves ; 
single  persons  or  families,  now  resident  in  the  west- 
ern country,  or  who  may  emigrate  hereafter."  The 
first  two  classes  would  want  considerable  tracts, 
while  the  third  would  desire  land  in  small  quantities. 
Hence  three  land  offices  should  be  established:  a 
General  Land  Office  at  the  seat  of  government, 
where  large  purchases  could  be  made,  and  subor- 
dinate offices,  one  in  the  Northwest  and  the  other 
in  the  Southwest  Territory.  It  seemed  to  him  desir- 
,able  to  have  the  Commissioners  of  the  General 
Land  Office  vested  with  a  considerable  amount  of 
discretion  in  order  that  they  might  take  advantage 
of  special  conditions,  but  their  conduct  should  be 
subject  to  some  limitation,  and  he  proceeded  to  out- 
line certain  regulations  which  would  be  desirable. 

A  study  of  these  propositions  discloses  Hamil- 
ton's ideas  on  the  land  problem.  He  dismissed  the 
existing  system  of  prior  surveys  of  ranges,  town- 
ships and  sections — although  he  believed  there 
would  be  some  community  settlements — and  advo- 
cated instead  a  modified  system  of  indiscriminate 
locations.  In  other  words,  there  should  be  three 
tracts  set  apart :  one  for  subscribers  to  the  proposed 
loan,  and  no  location  to  be  less  than  five  hundred 
acres;  one  in  which  actual  settlers  might  secure 
tracts,  but  no  holding  to  exceed  one  hundred  acres ; 
and  one  in  which  land  should  be  sold  by  townships 
of  ten  miles  square.  But  "  any  quantities  may,  nev- 
ertheless, be  sold  by  special  contract,  comprehended 
either  within  natural  boundaries  or  lines,  or  both." 


72  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

In  these  three  tracts,  and  in  those  sold  under  special 
contract,  the  external  lines  of  purchases  were  to  be 
run  by  government  surveyors,  at  the  expense  of  the 
purchasers,  but  no  regular  system  of  surveys  was 
to  be  established. 

Sales  at  a  fixed  price  were  substituted  for  the 
auction  system,  and  thirty  cents  an  acre,  in  specie 
or  stock  bearing  an  immediate  interest  at  six  per 
cent.,  was  suggested  as  a  fair  price.  No  credit  was 
to  be  allowed  for  purchases  of  less  than  ten  miles 
square,  and  in  no  case  could  the  credit  run  over  two 
years,  while  one  quarter  of  the  price  must  be  paid 
down  and  some  security,  besides  the  land,  advanced 
for  the  balance.  This  was  a  good  business  proposi- 
tion, but  a  poor  political  one,  for  it  favored  the 
rich  speculator  instead  of  the  actual  settler. 

Donaldson,  in  his  "  Public  Domain,"  described 
the  report  as  follows:  "The  extraordinary  char- 
acter of  the  above  plan  can  now  be  fully  seen.  It 
forms  in  its  several  leading  features  the  basis  of 
the  prior  and  existing  methods  of  administration 
for  the  sale  and  disposition  of  the  public  domain. 
Mr.  Hamilton's  views  upon  this  subject,  as  well 
as  upon  every  question  he  touched  relating  to  the 
organization  of  the  Nation,  displayed  his  matchless 
practical  ability."7 

A  careful  study  of  the  report  fails  to  justify  this 
praise.  Land  offices  were  later  established,  but 
they  had  been  suggested  before  this  time.  The  pro- 
vision for  three  tracts  in  which  locations  of  different 

T  Donaldson,  200. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  73 

sizes  might  be  made  was  promptly  rejected,  and  if 
accepted  would  have  been  a  decided  retrogression 
if  not  entirely  impracticable.  The  fixed  price  of 
thirty  cents  an  acre  was  apparently  too  low  in  view 
of  the  later  sales  at  two  dollars  minimum  under  the 
auction  system,  while  the  recommendation  of  the 
credit  system  was  not  a  wise  move,  even  though  it 
did  not  apply  to  the  mass  of  settlers.  As  far  as  the 
details  of  administration  go  they  were  but  little  in 
advance  of  the  old  Ordinance.  The  General  Land 
Office  was  to  take  over  the  duties  of  the  defunct 
Board  of  Treasury,  the  Surveyor  General  was  to 
have  the  duties  assigned  to  the  Geographer,  while 
the  necessity  of  three  commissioners  for  each  of  the 
land  offices  was  not  made  clear.  The  Treasurer  of 
the  United  States  and  the  Secretaries  of  the  West- 
ern governments  were  to  be  the  receivers  of  monies. 
There  is  but  one  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  this 
report  and  that  is  that  Hamilton  prepared  it  to 
meet  the  financial  demands  of  the  hour  without  a 
proper  consideration  of  the  future.  In  no  other 
way  can  the  substitution  of  indiscriminate  locations, 
even  in  definite  tracts,  for  the  system  of  accurate 
surveys  devised  in  1785,  be  accounted  for.  The 
surveys,  to  be  sure,  were  expensive  and  time  was 
required  for  their  execution,  moreover  they  were 
opposed  in  certain  sections,  but  they  were  the  basis 
of  an  accurate  and  regular  land  system.  The  en- 
couragement of  purchases  by  speculators  is  also 
accounted  for  by  Hamilton's  interest  in  funding 
the  national  debt,  and  at  that  time  many  members 


74  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

of  Congress  believed  with  him  that  the  lands  should 
be  managed  as  a  great  source  of  revenue  rather  than 
solely  as  field  for  western  expansion. 

As  the  report  was  communicated  to  the  House 
only  a  few  weeks  before  the  close  of  the  session  no 
action  was  taken  on  it  at  that  time,  but  on  August 
4,  the  act  making  provision  for  the  payment  of  the 
debt  of  the  United  States8  contained  a  section 
appropriating  the  proceeds  of  all  future  sales  of 
lands  to  the  sinking  fund.  This  was  a  wider  appli- 
cation of  the  land  revenue  than  Hamilton  had  sug- 
gested and  it  was  frequently  cited  later  in  opposi- 
tion to  grants  of  land  revenue  for  other  purposes. 
Washington  approved  of  it  in  his  second  annual 
message  and  trusted  that  the  lands  would  soon  be 
made  to  contribute  to  the  reduction  of  the  debt. 

At  the  opening  of  the  Third  Session  Hamilton's 
report  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
and  a  debate  ensued  on  his  recommendations.  After 
a  lengthy  discussion  the  House  agreed  upon  twenty 
four  resolutions  which  were  referred  to  a  committee 
appointed  to  draw  up  a  bill.9  The  questions  which 
caused  most  discussion  were  the  method  of  location, 
the  method  of  sale,  and  the  price. 

Scott  fought  vigorously  for  the  principle  of  in- 
discriminate location.  "  He  conceived  it  would  be 
the  interest  of  Government  to  let  every  one  pur- 
chase where  he  pleased,  and  as  much  or  as  little 
as  he  chose."  So  he  attacked  the  recommendations 
of  the  report  that  certain  tracts  be  laid  off  in  which 

8  1790,  ch.  34.  »  Annals,  1790-1,  pp.  1829-32. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  75 

land  should  be  located  in  different  quantities,  as 
well  as  the  provision  that  the  actual  settler  should 
not  be  allowed  to  purchase  over  one  hundred  acres. 

Although  the  House  agreed  with  him  in  oppos- 
ing the  setting  aside  of  separate  tracts  for  different 
modes  of  location,  yet  he  stood  alone  on  the  ques- 
tion of  indiscriminate  location.  On  this  question 
the  debate  took  the  form  of  an  "  experience  meet- 
ing." Williamson  had  seen  the  evil  effects  of  it  in 
North  Carolina,  choice  tracts  were  selected  by 
speculators  and  the  remainder  rendered  unsalable. 
Boudinot  cited  the  New  Jersey  experience:  "  He 
said  more  money  had  been  spent  at  law,  in  disputes 
arising  from  that  mode  of  settlement  in  New  Jer- 
sey, than  would  have  been  necessary  to  purchase  all 
the  land  of  the  State."  Sedgwick,  of  Massachu- 
setts, disliked  the  system :  it  led  to  speculation  and 
monopoly. 

So  Scott's  amendment  providing  for  indiscrim- 
inate location  was  defeated,  but  he  succeeded  in 
carrying  an  amendment  to  place  on  sale  the  Seven 
Ranges  provided  for  in  1785  instead  of  the  pro- 
posed townships  ten  miles  square.  This  enabled 
some  land  to  be  placed  on  sale  at  once. 

Regarding  the  price  and  the  method  of  sale  there 
was  much  difference  of  opinion.  Should  there  be  a 
fixed  price  as  proposed  in  the  report,  or  should 
there  be  a  minimum  price  established  leaving  the 
actual  price  to  be  determined  by  the  surveyors,  or, 
finally,  should  the  auction  system  be  used? 

Members  from  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire 


76  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

and  New  York  stated  that  their  states  had  fixed  the 
relative  value  of  the  lands  but  vested  discretionary 
power  in  the  surveyor  or  commissioner.  Georgia, 
on  the  other  hand,  had  found  it  a  mischievous  sys- 
tem, and  most  of  the  speakers  favored  a  fixed  price. 
Hamilton's  estimate  of  thirty  cents  an  acre  was  re- 
tained, although  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  this. 

The  resolutions  as  adopted  by  the  House  agreed 
with  Hamilton's  report  in  some  respects  but  dif- 
fered in  many  essentials.10  The  proposal  of  tracts 
for  different  forms  of  location  was  rejected.  The 
tract  for  townships  and  the  tract  for  actual  settlers 
were  merged  in  the  resolution  that  the  Seven 
Ranges  be  placed  on  sale,  while  no  tract  for  sub- 
scribers to  the  proposed  loan  was  necessary,  as  that 
form  of  funding  the  debt  had  been  given  up.  There 
might  be  special  sales  within  natural  boundaries  or 
lines,  but  purchasers  on  a  navigable  river  must  pur- 
chase a  certain  amount  of  back  lands.  The  price 
was  fixed  at  thirty  cents  an  acre  but  all  securities 
were  to  be  received  without  discrimination.  The 
twelfth  resolution  was  new,  and  provided  for  pre- 
emption in  these  words :  "  That  preference  be  given 
for  a  limited  time  to  those  actual  settlers  whose 
titles  are  not  secured  by  the  former  governments  of 
that  country  and  the  existing  ordinances  and  acts 
of  Congress."  The  General  and  subordinate  land 
offices  were  agreed  upon  and  a  Surveyor  General, 
who  could  appoint  his  deputies,  was  provided. 

10  Annals,  1790-1,  p.  1841. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  77 

A  bill,  based  on  these  resolutions,  was  presented 
to  the  House  and  amended  so  as  to  reduce  the  price 
to  twenty-five  cents  "  hard  money.''  It  passed  and 
in  the  Senate  it  was  referred  to  a  committee  and 
then  postponed  to  the  next  session. 

So,  year  after  year  passed  and  no  provision  was 
made  for  the  sale  of  western  lands.  The  nation 
certainly  needed  the  revenue,  and  for  this  reason 
alone  some  action  was  necessary,  while  settlers  mov- 
ing into  the  Northwest  demanded  the  right  to  pur- 
chase land.  In  spite  of  the  Indian  forays  the  settle- 
ments beyond  the  Ohio  were  rapidly  increasing  and 
the  pioneers  were  locating  either  upon  the  tracts 
which  had  passed  out  of  public  ownership  or  as  un- 
authorized settlers  upon  the  public  domain. 

It  was  not  until  the  first  session  of  the  Fourth 
Congress  that  a  determined  effort  was  made  to 
provide  a  system  of  disposal  for  the  western  lands, 
and  although  the  necessary  resolution  was  presented 
on  December  17,  1795,  a  very  interesting  event 
occurred  before  the  committee  reported  a  bill. 

This  event  was  the  exposure  in  the  House  of  a 
rather  crude  attempt  to  bribe  certain  members  into 
favoring  a  grant  of  the  Michigan  peninsula,  some 
twenty  million  acres,  to  a  company  of  speculators 
represented  by  a  Mr.  Randall  and  a  Mr.  Whitney. 
The  company  was  willing  to  pay  half  a  million  or 
even  a  million  dollars  for  the  grant  and  their  serv- 
ices in  quieting  the  Indians  would  make  the  grant 
desirable.  It  was  a  bold  scheme.  The  property 
was  to  be  divided  into  forty  shares  and  twenty-four 


78  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

of  them  were  to  be  distributed  among  members  of 
Congress.  The  matter  came  up  on  December  28, 
when  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  the  chairman  of  the 
Land  Office  Committee,  stated  that  he  had  been 
approached  by  Randall,  whereupon  Murray,  of 
Maryland,  Giles  and  Madison,  of  Virginia,  stated 
that  they  also  had  been  sounded.  Buck,  of  Ver- 
mont, had  been  approached  by  Whitney  at  his 
home,  while  Lyman,  of  Massachusetts,  added  that 
the  latter  had  discussed  the  plan  in  general  terms 
with  him. 

This  testimony  was  sufficient  to  cause  the  arrest 
of  the  bribers.  Then  the  House  had  to  decide  upon 
a  form  of  procedure  in  such  a  case,  for  never  before 
had  an  outsider  been  summoned  before  the  bar  of  the 
House.  Two  more  members  then  stated  that  they 
had  been  approached  by  Randall,  and,  on  January 
6,  1796,  he  was  declared  guilty  of  a  contempt  and 
breach  of  privileges  of  the  House  in  attempting  to 
corrupt  the  integrity  of  its  members.  He  was  then 
called  to  the  bar,  reprimanded  and  committed  to 
the  custody  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  until  further 
orders.  Whitney  escaped  by  a  narrow  margin, 
mainly  because  the  offense  was  committed  before 
Congress  assembled.  Within  a  week  Randall  peti- 
tioned for  his  discharge  and  it  was  granted. 

This  incident  has  been  narrated  because  it  un- 
doubtedly caused  Congress  to  hold  fast  to  its  posi- 
tion against  large  sales  to  speculators,  and  it  seems 
also  to  have  caused  a  greater  interest  in  the  question 
of  the  public  domain  than  ever  before. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  79 

There  was  another  event  which  doubtless  had 
even  a  greater  effect  in  arousing  interest  in  the 
question.  For  the  first  time  since  the  states  had 
ceded  their  western  lands  it  seemed  as  if  the  nation 
could  really  pass  a  good  title  to  purchasers.  Before 
the  United  States  could  dispose  of  its  waste  land  it 
must  quiet  the  troublesome  occupancy  of  the  Indian 
tribes,  and  although  the  government  had  endeav- 
ored to  do  this  in  the  Northwest  it  was  not  until  the 
crushing  victory  of  "  Mad  "  Anthony  Wayne,  on 
the  20th  of  August,  1794,  that  Indian  treaties  in 
that  region  really  meant  anything. 

The  treaties  of  Fort  Mclntosh,  in  1785,  and  of 
Ft.  Harmar,  in  1789,  had  not  been  generally 
accepted  by  the  northwestern  tribes.  The  next  year 
they  insisted  on  reestablishing  the  boundary  line 
along  the  Ohio,  and,  negotiations  failing,  the  first 
of  a  series  of  expeditions  was  sent  against  them. 
Harmar's  expedition  of  1790  and  St.  Glair's  of 
1791  were  disastrous  failures,  and  in  1793  the  com- 
missioners appointed  to  negotiate  with  the  hostiles 
met  a  severe  rebuff.  Only  the  Ohio  as  a  boundary 
would  satisfy  them,  and  they  repudiated  the  exist- 
ing treaties  as  made  by  a  few  unauthorized  chiefs. 
But  Wayne's  victory  of  the  next  year  broke  the 
spirit  of  the  Indians,  and  a  year  later,  August  3, 
1795,  by  the  treaty  of  Greeneville,  some  twenty-five 
thousand  square  miles  were  ceded  to  the  United 
States,  comprising  the  eastern  and  southern  part  of 
Ohio,  as  well  as  sixteen  detached  portions  west  of 
the  line.  Doubtless  the  knowledge  that  the  British 


80  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

were  about  to  surrender  the  western  posts  facili- 
tated the  treaty. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  affairs  when  Congress 
assembled.  The  British  posts  had  been  given  up  by 
Jay's  treaty,11  and  a  rich  territory  was  opened  for 
settlement  by  the  Greeneville  treaty,  into  which 
pioneers  were  already  advancing,  while  the  airing 
of  the  bribery  charges  warned  Congress  to  be  cau- 
tious in  its  legislation. 

The  Land  Office  Committee  of  the  House  re- 
ported a  bill  on  January  28,  1796,  which  was  read 
twice  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
where  it  was  not  brought  up  for  debate  until  Feb- 
ruary 15.  Unfortunately  there  is  no  record  of  this 
original  bill  although  many  features  can  be  restored 
from  the  debates. 

The  chairman  of  the  committee,  William  Smith, 
of  South  Carolina,  stated  that  the  committee  had 
two  objects  in  view:  "to  raise  revenue,  and  to  sell 
the  land  in  such  lots  as  would  be  most  convenient 
to  purchasers."  12  For  that  reason  it  favored  town- 
ships of  three  miles  square  and  rejected  the  auction 
system  in  favor  of  a  fixed  price  of  two  dollars  an 
acre. 

These  were  the  features  of  the  report  which 
elicited  the  greatest  debate,  and  the  old,  old  ques- 
tion was  again  threshed  out:  shall  the  system  of 
rectangular  surveys  be  retained  or  shall  the  prior 
surveys — for  no  one  favored  indiscriminate  loca- 
tions— take  into  consideration  natural  bounds,  the 

«  Nov.  19,  1794.  12  Annals,  1795-6,  p.  331. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  81 

division  of  bottoms,  and  the  laying  out  of  land 
along  the  water  courses  with  larger  tracts  attached. 
All  the  latter  propositions  were  rejected,  and  the 
surveys  were  to  be  rectangular. 

A  more  vigorous  discussion  arose  as  to  the  size 
of  the  lots.  Members  from  the  back  country  stood 
out  for  the  sale  of  small  tracts,  even  as  small  as 
fifty  acres,  while  there  were  others  who  believed  in 
selling  large  tracts  to  moneyed  purchasers.  The 
question  was  brought  to  an  issue  by  the  amendment 
of  Gallatin  that  half  the  townships  should  be  sold 
in  large  and  the  other  half  in  small  tracts,  without 
specifying  the  respective  sizes.  Havens,  of  New 
York,  stood  out  for  the  sale  of  all  the  land  in  small 
lots,  preferably  six  hundred  and  forty  acres.  Al- 
though some  favored  his  amendment  yet  the  ma- 
jority was  for  Gallatin's  proposal,  the  "wholesale 
and  retail  plan."  In  defending  his  amendment 
Gallatin  urged  that  large  tracts  should  be  offered 
so  that  the  speculator  could  subdivide  and  sell  at 
a  long  credit  to  poor  men  who  could  not  afford  to 
purchase  directly  from  the  government.  If  only 
small  tracts  were  placed  on  sale  these  would  be 
purchased  here  and  there  and  so  prevent  a  pur- 
chaser from  buying  a  large  tract.  There  was  a 
pretty  general  agreement  that  both  sizes  of  tracts 
were  desirable. 

An  effort  was  then  made  to  limit  the  amount  of 
sales,  either  by  extending  the  settlement  in  com- 
pact bodies  or  by  setting  a  limit  to  the  annual  sales. 
The  assigned  reason  was  the  question  of  defense  and 


82  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

government,  but  those  who  opposed  believed  that 
the  Eastern  states  feared  too  great  an  immigration 
as  well  as  that  interested  landholders  favored  the 
policy.  This  attempt  to  limit  settlement  was  de- 
feated. 

The  provision  for  a  fixed  price  was  rejected  with- 
out defense  while  the  auction  system  found  many 
supporters  and  was  continued  with  a  minimum 
price  of  two  dollars  an  acre.  There  was  practically 
no  objection  to  this  figure,  which  testifies  to  the 
improved  financial  conditions  since  1791  when 
twenty-five  cents  an  acre  was  proposed.  Even  Gal- 
latin  believed  the  price  none  too  high. 

Further  provisions  were  added  with  little  debate. 
The  large  lots  were  to  be  sold  at  the  capital  and 
the  small  ones  in  the  Western  Territory.  Salt 
springs  were  to  be  reserved,  and  there  were  to  be 
reserves  for  schools  and  colleges. 

Williams,  of  New  York,  offered  an  amendment 
which  is  of  real  interest.  If  it  had  been  adopted 
it  would  have  had  no  small  effect  upon  the  land 
system.  For  he  proposed  that  conditions  of  settle- 
ment be  affixed  to  every  grant.  That  there  be  one 
settler  on  every  .  .  .  acres  within  .  .  .  years  from 
the  sale  thereof.  This  motion  produced  a  very  gen- 
eral debate  and  was  supported  generally  by  the 
members  from  the  frontier,  notably  Gallatin 
and  Findley,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Rutherford,  of 
Virginia,  who  had  lived  fifty  years  on  the  frontier. 
Williams  agreed  with  them  that  the  settlers  should 
not  be  forced  to  improve  the  value  of  lands  for  non- 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  83 

residents,  while  Rutherford  pointed  out  that  un- 
occupied tracts  would  cause  a  weak  frontier.  Galla- 
tin  held  that  this  was  the  system  before  the  Rev- 
olution "from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the 
other." 

The  opposition  came,  in  general,  from  members 
who  favored  speculative  purchases.  Others  believed 
it  would  reduce  the  price  of  lands,  and  encourage 
emigration,  to  which  Gallatin  replied  that  he  hoped 
the  price  of  labor  in  the  old  states  would  be  kept 
up  thereby.    Finally  it  was  stated  that  such  condi- 
tions in  New  York,  Massachusetts,  New  Hamp- 
shire, Vermont  and  other  states  had  been  found  in- 
effectual, and  that  Government  could  not  enforce 
the  condition.     The  amendment  was  rejected,  al- 
though twenty-two  votes  were  cast  in  its  favor. 
This  is  apparently  the  only  time  that  any  deter- 
mined attempt  was  made  to  insist  upon  the  settle- 
ment of  all  land  sold  by  the  government.  If  it  could 
have  been  enforced  the  measure  would  have  been 
a  creditable  one.    The  actual  settlers  were  continu- 
ally complaining  of  the  tracts  retained  by  moneyed 
Easterners  which  increased  in  value  only  as  they 
themselves  toiled  and  improved  the  surrounding 
lands.    They  were  soon  able  to  cause  Congress  to 
abandon  its  reserve  system  but  the  holdings  of  the 
speculators  were  even  a  greater  source  of  com- 
plaint.    If  this  condition  of  settlement  had  been 
passed  the  provision  for  the  sale  of  large  tracts 
would  have  been  worthless,  and  the  attempt  to 
secure  two  diverse  ends  would  have  been  abandoned 


84,  THE    NATIONAL   LAND   SYSTEM 

— the  welfare  of  the  settler  would  have  triumphed 
over  the  needs  of  the  treasury. 

Other  amendments  were  proposed  and  carried, 
notably  to  extend  the  term  of  credit  to  three  years, 
and  then  the  bill  was  referred  to  a  select  committee 
consisting  of  the  original  committee  with  four  mem- 
bers added. 

The  bill  reported  by  the  committee  provided  for 
rectangular  surveys,  six  miles  square.  Half  the 
townships  were  to  be  sold  in  quarter  townships  of 
three  miles  square,  and  the  balance  in  lots  of  six 
hundred  and  forty  acres. 

In  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  an  attempt  was 
again  made  to  limit  the  amount  of  land  placed  on 
sale,  as  well  as  to  provide  for  a  bond  and  mortgage 
instead  of  forfeiture  for  non-payment.  A  separate 
tract  for  the  location  of  military  warrants  was  de- 
cided upon  rather  than  permitting  them  to  be  ex- 
changed for  land  anywhere.  And,  finally,  an 
amendment  was  carried  providing  for  the  sale  of 
half  the  six  hundred  and  forty  acre  lots  in  quarter 
sections  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres.  This  was 
a  great  concession  to  the  actual  settler,  but  an  at- 
tempt to  divide  the  quarter  township  lots  into  sec- 
tions was  lost.  When  the  bill  was  debated  in  the 
House  an  attempt  was  made  to  increase  the  mini- 
mum lots  to  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres,  but 
without  success. 

The  Senate  passed  the  bill  with  amendments— 
notably  one  which  struck  out  the  small  lots,  and  an 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  85 

attempt  to  reinsert  this  provision  in  the  House  was 
lost,  thirty-three  votes  to  thirty-one. 

After  further  amendments  the  bill  finally  passed 
and  President  Washington  approved  it  on  May  18, 
1796. 

In  brief,  this  act  "providing  for  the  sale  of  the 
lands  of  the  United  States  in  the  territory  north- 
west of  the  river  Ohio,  and  above  the  mouth  of  the 
Kentucky  river,"13  was  much  as  follows:  A  Sur- 
veyor General  was  to  be  appointed  who  might  en- 
gage deputies  and  who  was  to  survey  the  land  in 
the  above  district  to  which  the  Indian  title  had  been 
extinguished.  The  lands  were  to  be  divided  into 
townships  of  six  miles  square,  one-half  of  which 
townships  were  to  be  further  divided  into  sections 
of  six  hundred  and  forty  acres.  Reserves  were  to 
be  made  for  the  United  States,  namely,  the  salt 
spring  near  the  Scioto  river  and  the  township  em- 
bracing it,  and  every  other  salt  spring  and  the  sec- 
tion which  included  it,  also  four  sections  at  the  cen- 
ter of  each  township,  except  in  the  case  of  fractional 
townships  of  less  than  three  quarters  of  a  township. 
As  soon  as  seven  ranges  were  surveyed  they  were 
to  be  offered  for  sale,  the  sections  at  Cincinnati 
and  Pittsburg,  and  the  quarter  townships  at  the 
seat  of  government.  The  sale  was  to  be  at  public 
vendue  and  two  dollars  an  acre  was  fixed  as  the 
minimum  price.  Provision  was  also  made  for  the 
sale  of  the  townships  surveyed  under  the  Ordinance 

is  1796,  ch.  29.    May  18. 


86  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

of  1785.  As  to  payments,  the  purchaser  was  to 
deposit  one-twentieth,  complete  one-half  of  the 
price  within  thirty  days,  or  forfeit  the  deposit,  and 
pay  the  balance  within  one  year,  but  a  discount  of 
ten  per  cent,  was  offered  for  cash.  The  patent  only 
issued  when  the  payment  was  completed,  and  any 
failure  in  payments  caused  a  forfeiture  of  the  land 
and  the  deposits.  Other  provisions  related  to  the 
administration  of  the  system.  The  surveys  were 
to  be  at  the  expense  of  the  United  States,  but  fees 
were  defined  for  certificates  and  patents.  A  re- 
ceiver of  moneys  was  to  be  appointed  by  the  Presi- 
dent. The  reserves  for  schools  and  colleges  did  not 
appear  in  the  bill  as  passed.14 

It  is  of  interest  at  this  time  to  note  the  develop- 
ment of  Congressional  opinion  regarding  the  public 
lands  between  the  Ordinance  of  1785  and  the  first 
general  land  act  under  the  new  Congress.  Although 
the  members  did  not  recognize  it  yet  there  was  a 
marked  similarity  between  the  two  acts.  The  rec- 
tangular surveys,  the  townships  six  miles  square, 
the  division  into  sections,  the  sale  of  large  and  small 
tracts,  the  auction  system, — these  fundamental  pro- 
visions are  all  found  in  the  Ordinance.  Yet  the 
debates  between  1789  and  1796  hardly  indicate  that 
there  was  then  in  existence  an  ordinance  for  the 
sale  of  the  lands  of  the  United  States.  In  other 
words,  the  then  members  of  Congress  based  this 

i*  Fees:  Certificates,  when  one-half  of  purchase  price  was  paid, 
for  640  acres,  $6.00;  for  quarter  township,  $20.00.  Patents,  for  640 
acres,  $6.00;  quarter  township,  $20.00. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  87 

new  legislation  on  the  experience  with  which  they 
were  familiar,  the  recent  experience  of  New  York 
being  frequently  cited,  and  their  observations  co- 
incided with  those  of  the  members  of  the  old  Con- 
gress. The  questions  which  divided  Congress  in 
1785  no  longer  appear.  In  1796  no  member  fav- 
ored locations  by  the  use  of  warrants,  everyone 
realized  the  value  of  prior  surveys.  Nor  did  any 
member  hold  out  for  "township  planting,"  even 
the  New  Englanders  realized  that  such  a  system 
would  not  have  general  application  in  the  West. 
Those  members  who  insisted  upon  the  sale  of  large 
tracts  used  different  arguments  from  those  ad- 
vanced in  1785.  Then,  the  sale  of  townships  would 
encourage  the  settlement  of  bodies  of  emigrants 
who  would  divide  their  purchase  into  small  hold- 
ings; now,  large  tracts  were  to  be  offered  to  the 
speculator,  and  although  it  was  hoped  that  small 
holdings  would  result  yet  he  would  profit  in  the 
process.  So  in  1796  both  parties  to  the  main  com- 
promise of  1785  were  pronounced  in  the  wrong, 
but  Congress  had  not  seen  fit  to  reduce  the  mini- 
mum tracts. 

In  the  eleven  years  since  the  Ordinance  various 
attempts  were  made  to  modify  the  system  of  sur- 
veys so  as  to  take  into  consideration  natural  bounds, 
which  would  destroy  the  rectangular  system,  as  well 
as  to  make  more  equitable  distribution  of  the  water 
courses  and  bottoms.  Under  an  older  and  richer 
government  the  latter  provisions  would  have  been 
desirable.  Congress  rejected  them  simply  because 


88  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

of  the  expense  of  so  careful  a  survey.  But  fifty 
years  later  the  United  States  should  have  adopted 
such  a  system  in  the  far  West  where  water  is  of 
such  tremendous  importance.  Congress  insisted 
upon  surveys  before  sales,  and  the  cheapest  and 
surest  were  the  rectangular  surveys  of  the  old 
Ordinance. 

As  to  the  price  of  the  waste  lands  the  estimates 
ran  from  the  one  dollar  minimum  of  1785  to  the 
fixed  twenty-five  cents  proposed  in  1791,  and  the 
two  dollar  minimum  of  1796.  This  is  not  difficult 
to  understand.  The  improved  credit  of  the  nation 
made  the  latter  price  possible,  and  both  East  and 
West  agreed  on  it,  the  former  to  check  emigration, 
and  the  latter  to  prevent  engrossing.  At  this  time 
the  government  was  in  competition  with  several  of 
the  old  States.  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and 
Georgia  were  all  selling  back  lands  at  lower  rates. 
But  the  sure  titles  and  the  superior  fertility  of  the 
nation's  lands  were  rapidly  turning  the  tide  of  set- 
tlement to  the  Ohio. 

The  struggle  to  secure  the  sale  of  small  tracts 
was  still  going  on.  Under  the  Ordinance  half  the 
townships  were  to  be  sold  in  sections,  and  the 
attempt  of  the  Virginians  to  introduce  three  hun- 
dred and  twenty  acre  lots  was  unsuccessful.  In 
1796  the  House  voted  for  one  hundred  and  sixty 
acre  lots  but  the  more  conservative  Senate  rejected 
this  concession  to  the  small  purchaser.  But  the 
reasons  which  caused  differences  of  opinion  varied 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  89 

in  the  two  debates.  In  1785  the  Southerner  strove 
for  the  small  location  in  order  to  secure  some  free- 
dom of  choice  for  the  settler.  It  was  a  struggle 
between  the  free  location  and  "  township  planting  " 
systems.  In  1796  the  members  from  the  back  dis- 
tricts favored  the  small  lots  for  the  sake  of  the  pen- 
niless pioneer,  but  they  were  also  opposed  to  the 
scattering  of  settlement.  Rutherford,  the  member 
from  the  back  counties  of  Virginia,  who  had  de- 
scribed himself  as  "a  mere  child  of  nature,  an  in- 
habitant of  the  frontier,  as  untaught  as  an  Indian," 
averred  that  the  one  hundred  and  sixty  acre  lot  pro- 
vision was  the  only  favorable  clause  to  real  settlers 
in  the  bill.  The  measure  was  urged  by  members 
from  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia  and  North 
Carolina,  and  was  opposed  in  debate  by  a  member 
from  each  of  the  first  three  states  and  from  Mass- 
achusetts and  Maryland. 

Thus  throughout  these  debates  the  lines  of  dis- 
cussion formed  and  reformed.  Such  divisions 
appeared  as  the  Coast  versus  the  Frontier,  the  for- 
mer unwilling  to  encourage  emigration  and  the 
advocates  of  the  latter  announcing  that  if  the  land 
could  not  be  purchased  on  favorable  terms  the  set- 
tlers would  take  it  and  then  the  old  States  would 
lose  their  citizens  and  the  nation  would  lose  its 
revenue  as  well;  the  friends  of  the  moneyed  pur- 
chaser versus  the  friends  of  the  poor  pioneer;  those 
who  would  manage  the  lands  solely  with  an  eye  to 
revenue  versus  those  who  considered  their  orderly 
settlement  of  more  importance.  But  the  lines  were 


90  THE    NATIONAL   LAND   SYSTEM 

no  longer  formed  between  the  East  and  South  as 
in  1785.  It  is  difficult  to  determine  how  much 
politics  entered  this  debate  of  1796.  Apparently 
there  was  little,  although  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee was  roundly  criticised  by  members  who  were 
criticising  administration  measures.  But  the  crude 
political  divisions  of  the  times  could  not  hold  in  the 
presence  of  the  greater  economic  issues. 

Certain  omissions  are  noteworthy.  The  school 
and  college  reserves  failed  to  carry,  possibly  be- 
cause they  were  introduced  in  1785  as  a  valuable 
feature  of  the  "township  planting"  system.  The 
attempt  to  limit  the  amount  of  land  sold  each  year, 
in  order  to  provide  for  a  compact  spread  of  popula- 
tion as  well  as  to  apply  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand  to  the  public  lands,  failed,  nor  would  Con- 
gress insist  upon  conditions  of  settlement.  And 
there  was  no  provision  for  preemption,  although 
it  had  been  favored  in  1791. 

A  gradual  advance  toward  the  establishment  of 
the  credit  system  is  noticeable.  In  1785  immediate 
payment  was  insisted  upon;  in  1787  three  months 
credit  was  allowed;  in  1791  a  credit  of  two  years 
was  suggested  on  large  purchases;  and  in  1796  a 
year's  credit  was  offered,  and  the  end  was  not  yet. 

In  brief,  therefore,  the  Act  of  1796  continued  the  v 
principles  of  the  Ordinance  of  1785  in  every  im- 
portant particular  except  as  to  the  granting  of 
credit.  And  in  that  lies  the  importance  of  the 
measure.  The  great  fundamental  principle  of  the 
prior  rectangular  surveys  was  so  firmly  established 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  91 

that  it  could  not  be  later  overturned.  Little  land 
was  disposed  of  under  this  act,  but  its  principles 
governed  the  important  amendment  of  1800.  The 
battle  was  won,  and  yet  it  might  so  easily  have  been 
lost.  The  desire  for  an  immediate  land  revenue,  the 
demand  for  untrammeled  land  selection,  even  the 
necessity  of  quickly  strengthening  the  frontier,  all 
might  have  caused  the  abandonment  of  the  slow 
but  sound  system  of  rectangular  surveys.  Any  in- 
terference with  that  principle  would  have  meant  a 
widespread  disturbance  of  the  orderly  peopling  of 
the  great  West.  Too  much  importance  can  hardly , 
be  attached  to  the  surveys  of  ranges,  townships,  sec- 
tions, and  lots,  in  extending  regular  settlements  into 
the  wilderness,  and  in  establishing  sound  titles  for 
all  time. 

Although  this  measure  was  before  Congress  for 
some  four  months,  and  two  weeks  elapsed  between 
its  passage  and  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  yet 
no  appropriation  was  made  to  carry  out  the  surveys 
provided  in  the  act.15  For  the  first  time  the  impor- 
tance of  such  legislation  was  felt,  and  many  times 
later  the  expansion  of  settlement  was  destined  to  be 
aided  or  retarded  by  clauses  in  appropriation  bills 
which  might  easily  escape  notice. 

Early  in  January,  1797,  Gallatin  moved  that  a 
committee  be  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  progress 
of  the  sales  and  to  report  any  needed  alteration. 
Through  this  committee  there  was  laid  before  Con- 
gress a  communication  of  Oliver  Wolcott,  Jr.,  the 

10  Mar,  3,  1797,  $27,000  appropriated. 


92  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  the  effect  that  as  far 
as  the  present  reports  went,  some  49,000  acres  in 
the  Seven  Ranges  had  been  sold  at  Pittsburg  for  a 
total  of  $112,135  of  which  $40,617  had  been  re- 
ceived.16 At  Philadelphia  the  alternate  townships 
which,  under  the  Ordinance,  were  to  be  sold  intact, 
had  been  offered  in  quarter  townships  with  no  bid- 
ders. And  the  secretary  accounted,  in  a  measure, 
for  the  poor  showing.  The  surveys  under  the  Ordi- 
nance only  covered  the  external  lines  of  the  town- 
ships, the  section  lines  were  not  run.  This  made  it 
very  difficult  for  the  purchaser  of  a  section  to  locate 
it,  as  well  as  for  the  government  to  compute  the 
size  of  fractional  townships  and  sections.  In  fact 
these  were  but  roughly  computed  and  sold  at  the 
buyer's  risk.  Another  reason  which  prevented  sales 
was  the  high  price — two  dollars  an  acre  was  too 
much  to  give  for  a  quarter  township  considering  the 
present  scarcity  of  money. 

The  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  this  communi- 
cation were  briefly,  if  Congress  insisted  upon  sell- 
ing land  in  large  tracts  it  must  either  reduce  the 
price  or  extend  the  credit,  and  if  it  desired  to  sell  to 
the  settler  it  must  either  reduce  the  price  or  the 
size  of  the  minimum  tract.  Twelve  hundred  and 
eighty  dollars,  the  minimum  price  for  a  section,  was 
too  much  to  expect  from  a  pioneer. 

The  committee  of  the  House  only  favored  one 
of  these  changes  and  reported  that  the  credit  should 
be  extended  so  that  one-fifth  should  be  paid  within 

16  P.  L.  L,  74. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  93 

thirty  days  and  the  balance  in  four  annual  pay- 
ments.17 But  the  House  rejected  this  proposal, 
and  in  opposition  to  the  extension  of  credit  it  was 
said  that  when  time  for  payment  came  not  money 
but  petitions  for  extending  the  time  would  come  in. 
It  would  be  better,  it  was  urged,  to  lower  the  price 
than  to  extend  the  credit.  The  House  also  rejected 
the  corollary  of  this  proposition  when  it  refused  to 
reduce  the  quarter  township  tracts  to  sections.  The 
only  general  legislation  of  this  session  was  proposed 
by  Gallatin  and  permitted  certificates  of  the  foreign 
debt  and  six  per  cent,  stock  to  be  received  for  lands 
at  their  nominal  value,  while  other  certificates 
should  be  received  at  approximately  their  market 
value.  At  the  time  these  certificates  were  worth 
about  seventy-five  cents^  on  the  dollar.18 

Two  years  passed  before  any  lands  were  surveyed 
for  sale  under  the  Act  of  1796.  The  sales  of  that 
year  had  been  of  lands  surveyed  in  the  Seven 
Ranges,  and  in  1797  the  newly  appointed  Surveyor 
General  and  his  staff  had  been  occupied  in  running 
the  Greeneville  treaty  line,  and  in  laying  off  the 
military  tract  and  the  tracts  granted  to  the  Mo- 
ravians.19 In  1798  they  took  up  the  regular  sur- 
veys but  seven  ranges  had  to  be  completed  before 
any'  could  be  placed  on  sale.  During  these  delays 
the  Senate  twice  tried  to  amend  the  law  of  1796, 
but  the  House,  on  Gallatin's  advice,  postponed  any 
action  until  the  act  had  been  given  a  trial.  In  the 

IT  P.  L.  I.,  74.  is  P.  L.  I.,  183. 

i»  P.  L.  I.,  81. 


9*  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

meanwhile  it  refused  to  grant  any  petitions  for  the 
purchase  of  lands  on  terms  different  from  those  in 
the  existing  law. 

In  1798  it  was  found  that  the  territory  North- 
west of  the  Ohio  contained  more  than  the  five  thou- 
sand free  male  inhabitants  necessary  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  representative  government,  and  the 
next  year  the  first  legislature  met  at  Cincinnati. 
William  Henry  Harrison,  late  Secretary  of  the 
Territory,  was  chosen  to  be  the  first  delegate  to 
Congress,  where  he  could  sit  and  debate  but  could 
not  vote.  He  was  the  first  representative  of  the 
"  public  land  states  "  to  appear  in  Congress  and  he 
at  once  set  about  securing  the  much  needed  land 
legislation.  His  constituents  wanted  the  right  to 
buy  land  in  small  tracts  and  at  local  land  offices; 
and  they  wanted  an  extension  of  credit  and,  if  pos- 
sible, a  grant  of  preemption  for  those  who  had 
taken  up  government  land  before  it  was  surveyed. 
It  was  Claiborne,  of  Tennessee,  who  urged  the  pre- 
emption measure,  and  seventeen  members  finally 
voted  for  it.  At  this  time  half  the  state  of  Tennes- 
see was  considered  public  land,  but  it  never  actually 
came  under  the  national  land  system  as  will  be 
narrated  elsewhere.  Harrison's  bill,  for  he  was 
chairman  of  the  House  Committee,  called  for  lots 
of  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres,  an  attempt  to 
reduce  them  to  one  hundred  and  sixty  failed,  and 
finally  the  "  large  and  small "  tract  idea  prevailed. 

The  Act  of  May  10,  1800,  was  the  first  effective 
J  land  law  since  the  Ordinance,  for  the  Act  of  1796 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  95 

had  not  had  time  to  be  thoroughly  tried.  The  gen- 
eral principles  of  the  three  acts  were  the  same,  the 
details  were  more  carefully  worked  out  in  1800. 

Four  land  offices  were  to  be  established,  at  Cin- 
cinnati, Chillicothe,  Marietta,  and  Steubenville, 
with  a  Register  and  Receiver  for  each.  Lands  east 
of  the  Muskingum  were  to  be  sold  only  in  sections ; 
west  of  the  Muskingum  and  above  the  mouth  of  the 
Kentucky  River,  half  in  sections  and  half  in  half- 
sections.  The  auction  system  with  the  two  dollar 
an  acre  minimum  was  retained,  but  after  lands  had 
been  exposed  to  sale  for  three  weeks  they  were 
subject  to  private  sale.  Payment  could  be  made 
in  specie  or  in  certificates  of  the  public  debt.  There 
was  a  return  to  the  Ordinance  in  the  provision  that 
the  purchaser  must  pay  the  surveying  expenses, 
which  were  fixed  at  six  dollars  a  section.  The  credit 
system  was  worked  out  more  carefully  than  in  1796. 
Exclusive  of  fees  and  surveying  expenses  the  pur- 
chaser deposited  one  twentieth  of  the  amount  of  the 
purchase  money,  to  be  forfeited  if,  within  forty 
days,  an  additional  payment  making  a  total  of  one- 
fourth  was  not  made.  If  this  sum  was  not  paid 
the  land  would  be  forfeited  and  subject  to  private 
sale,  but  not  for  less  than  the  price  bid  at  the 
auction.  The  balance  of  the  price  was  divided  into 
four  annual  payments  due  respectively  two,  three, 
and  four  years  after  the  sale.  On  these  payments 
interest  at  six  per  cent,  "from  the  date  of  sale"20 
was  charged,  payable  as  they  became  due,  but  a 

so  A  Senate  amendment. 


96  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

discount  of  eight  per  cent,  from  the  amount  de- 
mandable  was  extended  for  prompt  payments.  If 
the  final  payment  was  not  made  within  one  year 
after  it  fell  due  the  tract  would  be  advertised  for 
thirty  days  and  sold  at  public  sale  for  a  price  not 
less  than  the  whole  arrears  due  plus  the  expenses 
of  the  sale.  Any  surplus  would  be  given  to  the 
original  purchaser,  but  if  a  sufficient  price  was  not 
bid  and  paid  then  the  lands  reverted  to  the  United 
States  and  all  payments  were  forfeited.  Such  were 
the  means  devised  to  prevent  tricky  manipulations 
of  land  purchases. 

With  the  addition  of  the  Register  to  the  Receiver 
provided  in  the  Act  of  1796  we  have  the  administra- 
tive force  of  the  land  offices  as  they  exist  to-day. 
Both  officers  were  to  be  paid  by  fees,  the  latter  re- 
ceiving one  per  cent,  of  all  moneys  paid  him,  and 
the  former  one-half  per  cent,  on  moneys  expressed 
in  receipts  entered  by  him,  as  well  as  the  fees  for 
applications  and  certificates.21  Each  officer  was  to 
give  a  bond  of  ten  thousand  dollars.  Superintend- 
ents of  the  sales  were  to  receive  five  dollars  a  day. 
these  were  not  regular  officers  but  the  Register  and 

21  The  Register  entered  the  applications  for  land,  i.  e.,  entries, 
and  filed  the  receipts  for  moneys  paid  the  Receiver.  When  payments 
were  completed  he  would  give  a  final  certificate  which  entitled  the 
holder  to  a  patent,  granted  by  the  President  and  countersigned  by 
the  Secretary  of  State. 

Fees:  To  Register;  application,  section  $3.00,  half  section,  $2.00. 
Certificates  and  receipts,  each,  .25;  final  certificates,  $1.00;  all  copies 
of  documents,  .25;  general  inspection  of  the  book  of  surveys,  .25. 
To  United  States:  Patent,  section,  $5.00;  half  section,  $4.00.  Cost 
of  surveys,  $6.00  a  section. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  97 

either  the  Governor  or  Secretary  of  the  Northwest 
Territory  were  to  be  present  at  all  sales. 

The  Congressional  reserves  of  the  four  center 
sections  in  each  township  were  retained  and  they 
might  be  leased  for  seven  years.  But  the  school 
and  college  reserves  were  still  lacking.  Finally,  a 
preemption  at  the  minimum  price  was  granted  to 
the  builders  of  mills  before  the  passage  of  the  act. 

The  Act  of  1800  remained  the  model  for  acts 
regulating  the  disposal  of  lands  down  to  1820. 
According  to  its  title  it  was  an  act  to  amend  the 
Act  of  1796,  and  such  was  the  case,  but  both  acts 
applied  only  to  land  in  the  Northwest  and  above 
the  mouth  of  the  Kentucky  River.  Although  more 
carefully  worked  out  than  the  previous  act  it  con- 
tained only  modifications  of  that  former  legislation. 
The  principles  of  the  American  land  system  had 
been  threshed  out  in  the  earlier  debates.  If  the 
Congress  of  1796  had  sought  accuracy  it  would 
have  entitled  its  act  an  amendment  of  the  great 
Ordinance  of  1785.  There  is  not  a  single  feature 
of  the  Act  of  1800  which  did  not  develop  out  of  the 
earlier  legislation  or  debates. 

The  three  important  developments  of  the  Act  of 
1800  were:  the  establishment  of  Land  Offices,  the 
extension  of  credit,  and  the  reduction  of  the  size  of 
tracts.  But  these  were  normal  developments,  they 
were  not  new  features.  By  the  Act  of  1796  lands 
in  three  definite  tracts  were  to  be  sold  at  Pittsburg 
or  Cincinnati.  Four  years  later  four  tracts  were 
set  apart  and  a  permanent  office  established  in  each, 


98  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

and  these  were  the  land  offices  which  men  who  knew 
anything  about  Western  lands  had  been  striving  to 
have  established  for  fifteen  years.  The  provision 
that  land  might  be  sold  at  private  sale,  although  not 
found  in  any  previous  act,  was  a  very  simple  de- 
velopment of  the  auction  system.22  As  to  the  land 
officers,  a  Receiver  had  been  provided  in  1796  and 
the  new  Registers  took  over  the  duties  of  the  Terri- 
torial officials  under  that  act. 

The  credit  system  had  developed  since  1785.  The 
terms  were  carefully  worked  out  in  1800.  The  four 
year  credit,  denied  in  1797,  was  now  granted.23  All 
prospective  land  purchasers  were  enthusiastic  over 
that  feature.  But  there  were  men  level-headed 
enough  to  prophesy  the  result  of  such  an  induce- 
ment to  speculation  or  to  over-extensive  purchases 
by  the  actual  settler. 

The  reduction  of  the  size  of  tracts  to  three  hun- 
dred and  twenty  acres,  in  some  cases,  was  simply  a 
further  advance  in  the  movement  which  was  later 
to  result  in  forty  acre  lots.  The  Congress  of  1800 
was  not  as  liberal  as  it  might  have  been,  but  the  old 
objections  to  small  tracts  still  held  good. 

What  has  been  taken  for  an  apparently  new  pro- 
vision in  the  act  was  that  which  allowed  a  pre- 
emption to  builders  of  mills  before  this  time.  Pre- 
emption was  a  subject  on  which  opinions  differed 

22  The  private  sale  of  large  tracts  was  authorized  by  the  Confed- 
eration and  resulted  in  the  Ohio  Company  and  Symmes  purchases. 
Hamilton  favored  private  sales  rather  than  the  auction  system. 

**  In  1799  a  two  years'  credit  was  granted  the  purchasers  from 
Symmes. 


THE    LAND    SYSTEM,    1789-1800  99 

greatly  at  this  time.  In  1791  the  House  agreed  to 
a  resolution  that  preemption  be  extended  for  a 
limited  time  to  settlers  in  the  Northwest,  but  in 
1796  a  House  Committee,  reporting  on  the  claims 
of  sundry  persons  to  preemption,  presented  an 
adverse  report  "inasmuch  as  illegal  settlements  on 
the  lands  of  the  United  States  ought  not  to  be  en- 
couraged."24 In  1799  Congress  granted  preemp- 
tion at  the  minimum  price  to  persons  who  had  con- 
tracted with  Symmes  for  lands  which  did  not  fall 
within  his  patent.  This  was  granted  as  an  act  of 
grace  solely.  But  when  Claiborne  attempted  to 
insert  a  general  preemption  in  the  Act  of  1800  the 
House  rejected  the  proposal.  The  preemption  to 
mill  owners  was  undoubtedly  granted  because  of 
the  public  services  rendered  by  these  pioneers  who 
had  been  forced  to  settle  upon  public  lands  pending 
the  completion  of  the  surveys. 

Under  the  Act  of  1800  land  offices  were  opened 
and  sales  soon  commenced.  With  the  extension  of 
the  credit  system  and  the  great  increase  in  material 
prosperity  which  marked  the  first  years  of  the  new 
century  an  era  of  westward  migration,  with  the 
accompanying  land  sales  and  speculations,  began, 
which  soon  caused  further  modifications  of  the  land 
system.  And  these  changes,  important  as  they  were, 
still  left  untouched  the  principle  of  the  rectangular 
surveys.  To  follow  some  of  the  more  important 
developments  will  be  the  purpose  of  the  next  chap- 
ter. 

24  P.  L.  I.,  68. 


100  THE    NATIONAL    LAND  SYSTEM 

SALES  UNDER  THE  ACT  OF  1796. 

Amount        Price  For-  Receipts 

acres  felted 

1796     Pittsburg 43,446        $99,901.59        $525.94         $100,427.53 

Philadelphia...      5,120          10,280  10,280 


48,566       $110.181.59         $525.94         $110,707.53 


CHAPTER  V 

THE    ABOLITION    OF    THE    CREDIT    SYSTEM 

The  land  act  of  1800  was  passed  by  a  Congress 
in  which  the  Federalists  were  in  a  decided  majority. 
One  year  later  a  new  administration  controlled  the 
government,  an  administration  whose  support  had 
largely  come  from  the  back-woods  districts  of  the 
old  states,  and  whose  principles  were  to  win 
approval  in  the  states  yet  to  be  born.  Albert  Gal- 
latin,  formerly  the  leader  of  the  opposition  in  the 
House  and  a  man  who  spoke  authoritatively  on 
questions  of  the  public  lands,  now  entered  the  Cabi- 
net as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  For  the  first 
time  the  executive  power  over  the  public  lands  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  a  man  who  really  appreciated 
the  possibilities  and  the  difficulties  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  such  a  system.  Liberal  and  sympathetic 
recommendations  could  be  expected  from  this  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  and  they  should  receive 
thoughtful  consideration  by  this  Democratic  Con- 
gress. 

About  a  year  was  allowed  for  the  surveys  and 
new  divisions  under  the  Act  of  1800,  and  sales  were 
not  to  commence  until  April,  1801. *  The  principal 

i  Land  previously  offered  at  auction  was  placed  on  private  sale 
in  July,  1800,  at  Steubenville  and  Marietta.  No  public  land  was 
open  to  sale  south  of  the  Ohio. 

101 


102  TFJ£    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

l'i  .-'tares  of,  the  system  existing  at  that  date  were  as 
follows:  A  purchaser  desiring  land  east  of  the 
Muskingum,  could  secure  nothing  smaller  than  a 
section;  west  of  the  river  he  might  purchase  a  half 
section  in  one  of  the  alternate  townships  which 
were  so  divided.  If  he  desired  a  smaller  tract  he 
•would  turn  to  the  great  holdings  which  did  not 
come  under  the  Federal  system,  and  in  the  Ohio 
Company's  purchase,  in  Symmes'  tract,  in  the  Vir- 
ginia or  the  National  military  district,  or  in  the 
Connecticut  Reserve,  he  could  probably  secure  the 
amount  of  land  he  desired  and  on  more  reasonable 
terms.  But  if  he  preferred  the  terms  and  the  good 
title  of  the  government  he  would  attend  the  public 
sale,  which  lasted  for  three  weeks  at  the  three  west- 
ern offices.  These  sales  did  not  over-lap,  so  that  a 
purchaser  could  move  from  one  to  the  other.  The 
lands  in  the  Steubenville  district  had  already  been 
offered  at  auction  and  so  were  now  exposed  to  pri- 
vate sale. 

If  a  person  paid  cash  for  the  land  the  eight  per 
cent,  discount  reduced  the  price  to  one  dollar  and 
eighty-four  cents  an  acre.  And  this  was  further 
reduced  if  he  chose  to  pay  in  certificates  for  they 
were  worth  at  that  time  about  seventy-five  cents  on 
the  dollar.  On  the  other  hand,  interest  at  six  per 
cent,  from  the  date  of  sale  was  charged  on  all  bal- 
ances, while  the  eight  per  cent,  discount  was  allowed 
on  any  of  these  payments  which  might  be  fore- 
stalled. A  person  purchasing  a  half  section  at  the 
minimum  price  would  owe  the  United  States  six 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     103 

hundred  and  forty  dollars.  If  he  paid  cash  on  the 
day  of  sale  this  would  be  reduced  to  $588.93,2  plus 
a  two  dollar  fee  to  the  Register  for  the  application, 
and  another  of  one  dollar  for  the  final  certificate  of 
payment,  while  three  dollars  must  be  paid  for  sur- 
veying expenses,  and  a  patent  fee  of  four  dollars 
paid  to  the  government.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
desired  to  take  advantage  of  the  credit  system,  he 
would  pay  the  fees  for  the  survey  and  the  applica- 
tion as  well  as  one-twentieth  of  the  price  (thirty- 
two  dollars)  on  the  day  of  the  sale.  Within  forty 
days  he  must  pay  the  balance  of  the  first  quarter, 
one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  dollars  in  the  case 
assumed,  and  then  secure  a  certificate  from  the 
Register  at  a  cost  of  twenty-five  cents.  The  second 
quarter  was  due  at  the  end  of  two  years  from  the 
date  of  sale,  but  to  this  was  added  six  per  cent,  in- 
terest, making  a  total  of  $179.20,  and  the  interest 
ran  on  the  third  and  fourth  payments  also,  from  the 
date  of  sale.  Any  prepayment  would  secure  a  dis- 
count of  eight  per  cent,  from  the  sum  due  on  the 
day  which  was  anticipated.  A  fee  of  twenty-five 
cents  must  be  paid  to  the  Register  for  every  receipt. 
Hence  such  a  purchaser,  making  every  payment 
when  due,  would,  at  the  end  of  four  years,  have 
paid  $726.40  to  the  United  States  for  his  half  sec- 
tion, in  addition  to  various  fees  amounting  to  eleven 
dollars.  The  interest  charges  might  continue  for 

a  Determined  by  reckoning  the  future  payments  at  six  per  cent, 
interest,  and  deducting  eight  per  cent,  per  annum  for  the  amount 
forestalled. 


104  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

one  year  after  the  date  of  the  final  payment,  but  if 
the  tract  was  not  completely  paid  for  at  that  time 
it  would  revert  to  the  United  States.  Of  course  the 
specie  value  of  these  payments  would  be  reduced  if 
they  were  made  in  evidences  of  the  public  debt,  the 
value  of  which  varied  from  time  to  time. 

Such  a  system  was  bound  to  be  disastrous.  With 
the  second  payment  not  due  for  two  years  the  set- 
tler was  encouraged  to  purchase  just  as  much  land 
as  he  could  possibly  cover  on  the  first  payment,  hop- 
ing that  he  might  be  able  to  earn  enough  within  the 
first  credit  period  to  meet  the  subsequent  payments, 
or  perhaps  expecting  that  the  rush  of  westward 
migration  would  increase  the  price  of  his  tract  so 
that  he  might  sell  a  portion  for  enough  to  complete 
his  own  balance.  "In  spite  of  his  rude,  gross 
nature,  this  early  Western  man  was  an  idealist 
withal.  He  dreamed  dreams  and  beheld  visions." 3 
And  one  of  the  most  alluring  of  his  dreams  gen- 
erally involved  him  in  some  speculation  in  the  pub- 
lic lands.  As  long  as  crops  were  good  and  prices 
high,  as  long  as  population  increased  normally  and 
the  country  was  prosperous,  just  so  long  would  the 
credit  system  prove  of  service  in  developing  the 
West,  but  the  conditions  which  were  essential  to  its 
success  were  by  no  means  permanent.  And  with- 
out them  the  system  could  be  of  greater  danger 
than  it  had  ever  been  of  service. 

The  first  sales  under  the  new  act  were  the  pri- 
vate ones  at  Steubenville  and  Marietta,  commenc- 

s  Prof.  F.  J.  Turner,  in  Atlantic,  Sept.,  1896. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     105 

ing  on  July  1,  1800.  These  were  followed  by  the 
auctions  in  April,  May  and  June,  1801,  at  Cincin- 
nati, Chillicothe,  and  Marietta.  By  November  1, 
1801,  the  sales  had  amounted  to  398,466  acres,4 
purchased  at  $834,887,  of  which  amount  $586,426 
remained  due.  The  system  was  in  operation. 

In  this  chapter  it  will  only  be  possible  to  discuss 
changes  in  the  general  system,  in  succeeding  chap- 
ters the  development  of  each  of  the  special  forms 
of  disposition  will  be  described.  And  a  few  general 
statements  may  prove  of  service  here. 

The  period  from  1800  to  1820  was  one  of  increas- 
ing westward  migration,  especially  so  after  the 
War  of  1812.  The  population  of  Ohio,  for  ex- 
ample, increased  from  43,365  in  1800,  to  581,295 
two  decades  later,  and  the  otta^ptites  of  the  ]\Torth- 
west  showed  even  a  greater  proportional  growth. 
In  the  Southwest  the  Mississippi  Territory  with 
8,850  inhabitants  in  1800,  numbered  303,349  in  the 
states  of  Mississippi  and  Alabama  in  1820.  Ken- 
tucky doubled  and  Tennesssee  quadrupled  her 
numbers  in  the  period. 

These  facts  are  well  known.  Their  interest  here 
lies  in  connection  with  the  public  domain.  An  in- 
crease in  western  population  must  mean  an  increase 
in  the  demand  for  land,  but  the  relation  of  cause 
and  effect  is  not  as  absolute  as  might  be  imagined. 

First  of  all,  Kentucky  was  never  a  part  of  the 
public  domain,  and  although  Tennessee  was  nom- 
inally included  its  soil  was  so  covered  with  North 

4  Fin.  I,  715. 


106  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

Carolina  warrants  that  no  land  was  ever  sold  there 
under  the  Federal  system.  And  in  the  other  regions 
north  and  south  of  the  Ohio  the  settlers  were  not 
in  every  case  locating  upon  government  land.  In 
Ohio  several  large  tracts  had  passed  out  of  the 
domain,  or  had  never  formed  part  of  it,  while  in 
the  southwest  there  were  titles  based  upon  the 
grants  of  Spain,  Britain  and  France. 

Other  factors,  therefore,  entered  into  the  land 
sales.  First,  chronologically,  would  come  the  treaty 
with  the  Indians.  In  the  period  under  discussion 
sixty-one  treaties  of  varying  importance  were 
signed,  and  they  covered  the  cession  of  most  of  the 
Indian  lands  east  of  the  Mississippi.5  In  the  thir- 
ties most  of  the  Southern  Indians  finally  were  re- 
moved from  Aldftna  and  Mississippi.  After  the 
acquirement  of  ^^^idian  title  the  land  was  ready 
for  surveying,  which  must  precede  all  sales.  A 
large  appropriation  of  funds  for  surveys  meant  the 
rapid  preparation  of  wild  lands  for  open  sale,  while 
a  delay  in  the  surveys  meant  that  "  squatters " 
would  locate  upon  the  land  they  desired,  frequently 
preceding  the  surveyors  by  several  years.  Between 
1787  and  1819  the  expenditures  for  surveys 
amounted  to  $1,585,223,  and  half  of  the  total  was 
spent  in  the  last  four  years.6  Only  once  before  1816 
did  the  annual  expenditure  reach  $100,000.  With 
the  land  surveyed  the  sales  could  commence,  and 
these  were  in  turn  affected  by  certain  abnormal  con- 
ditions. 

e  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  18th  Report.     1897.  «  P.  L.  Ill,  459. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     107 

Indian  wars  north  and  south  and  the  War  of 
1812  forced  back  settlement  and  decreased  sales. 
Good  crops  and  high  prices  caused  expansion  and 
speculation.  And  especially  disturbing  was  the 
flood  of  paper  money  which  deluged  the  Missis- 
sippi Valley  after  the  War  of  1812.  The  cheap 
money  encouraged  widespread  land  speculation 
and  caused  the  final  downfall  of  the  credit  sys- 
tem. This  was  especially  true  in  the  southwest 
where  the  rush  for  cotton  lands  in  Alabama  led  to 
the  wildest  kind  of  bidding  at  the  Huntsville  land 
office. 

With  these  facts  in  mind  it  will  be  easier  to 
follow  the  changes  in  the  general  system  of  disposi- 
tion during  the  period. 

A  first  modification  of  the  credit  system  was  in- 
corporated in  the  Act  of  March  3,  1801.7  This  was 
a  special  act  designed  to  afford  relief  to  persons 
who  had  purchased  lands  from  Symmes  which  did 
not  lie  within  his  patent.  It  extended  the  preemp- 
tion rights  granted  by  the  Act  of  1799,8  and  as  that 
act  foreshadowed  an  extension  of  the  period  of 
credit,  so  this  act  outlined  a  further  change  in  gen- 
eral legislation. 

This  change  was  to  the  effect  that  no  inter- 
est would  hereafter  be  charged  on  deferred  pay- 
ments until  they  became  due.  Such  a  provision 
reduced  all  interest  charges,  but  also  reduced  the 
cash  price  per  acre  to  one  dollar  and  sixty-four 

T  Ch.  23.  8  See  page  62. 


108  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

cents,*  twenty  less  than  under  the  regular  system. 
The  importance  of  this  reduction  was  at  once  evi- 
dent and  measures  were  taken  to  have  it  incorpo- 
rated in  the  general  system.  At  the  next  session  of 
Congress  a  petition  was  presented  from  the  in- 
habitants of  Fairchild  County,  Ohio,  praying  for  a 
remission  of  interest  and  for  a  general  revision  of 
the  land  laws.10  This  petition  was  denied,  but  to- 
ward the  close  of  the  session  a  further  relaxation 
of  the  interest  provisions  was  made  in  the  case  of 
John  James  Dufour,  and  his  associates,  who  were 
permitted  to  enter  not  more  than  four  sections  of 
land,  between  the  Great  Miami  and  the  Indian 
*'  boundary  line,  at  two  dollars  the  acre,  payable, 
without  interest,  on  or  before  January  1st,  1814.11 
Payments  might  be  made  in  specie  or  in  certificates, 
and  six  per  cent,  discount  was  allowed  for  prompt 
payments.  These  favorable  terms  were  granted 
in  order  "to  encourage  the  introduction,  and  to 
promote  the  culture  of  the  vine,"  but  such  liberal 
terms,  preemption  and  remission  of  interest,  were 
to  be  demanded  by  settlers  generally. 

The  day  before  the  act  offering  these  favorable 
terms  to  the  vinedressers  was  signed*  another  act 
of  a  more  general  nature  had  received  the  Presi- 
dent's approval.  This  was  the  Ohio  enabling  act,12 
and  it  is  of  interest  in  the  present  connection  be- 
cause of  the  three  propositions  which  were  offered 

•  As  the  six  per  cent.  Interest  charges  were  not  Included  in  the 
sum  on  which  the  eight  per  cent,  discount  was  allowed. 
10  Annals,  1801-2,  508.      11  May  1,  1809.      12  Apr.  30,  1802,  ch.  40. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     109 

Ohio  on  condition  of  her  consenting  to  exempt  all 
lands  sold  by  the  United  States  from  State,  county, 
and  township  taxes  for  five  years  after  the  day  of 
sale.  An  account  of  this  legislation  is  given  else- 
where. Ohio  altered  the  propositions,  but  agreed 
to  the  exemption  on  November  29,  1802,  and  on 
March  3,  1803,  the  modified  propositions  were 
stated  by  the  United  States.  As  finally  adopted, 
the  considerations  offered  Ohio  for  the  exemption 
of  these  lands  for  five  years  were:  practically  one- 
thirty-sixth  of  all  the  lands  in  the  State  for  the  use 
of  schools;  certain  salt  springs  and  the  adjacent 
sections;  and  the  establishment  of  a  fund  consist- 
ing of  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  all  lands 
sold  within  the  State  after  June  30, 1802 — this  was 
subdivided  into  a  three  per  cent,  fund  to  be  ex- 
pended by  the  legislature  on  roads  within  the  State, 
and  a  two  per  cent,  fund  to  be  used  by  Congress 
for  roads  to  Ohio.  Out  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
latter  the  old  National  Road  from  Cumberland, 
Maryland,  to  the  Ohio  River  at  Wheeling,  was 
commenced  in  1806. 

The  object  of  the  agreement  between  the  United 
States  and  Ohio  was  the  protection  of  the  pur- 
chasers of  lands  from  the  United  States.  The 
State  could  not  tax  the  lands  of  the  United  States, 
nor  could  she  levy  higher  taxes  on  non-resident 
proprietors  than  on  residents.  This  was  forbidden 
by  the  fourth  article  of  compact  in  the  Ordinance 
of  1787.  But  the  taxation  of  lands  in  process  of 
sale  by  the  United  States  and  before  the  patent 


110  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

had  passed  would  cause  difficulties.  The  State 
could  not  sell  for  taxes  the  property  of  a  delinquent 
who  had  not  yet  secured  his  patent.  This  would 
be  selling  the  land  of  the  United  States,  for  it  had 
not  received  the  entire  purchase  price.13  But  if  this 
method  of  distress  were  not  allowed  the  State 
would  have  trouble  collecting  its  taxes  from  per- 
sons who  were  paying  for  their  lands  under  the 
credit  system.  So  it  seemed  desirable  to  secure  a 
general  exemption  from  taxation  for  all  purchasers 
of  the  national  lands  for  the  term  of  five  years,  the 
general  period  of  credit  for  lands.  Gallatin's  pro- 
posal of  February  13,  1802,  suggested  a  greater 
concession  to  the  purchasers.  It  called  for  an  ex- 
emption for  ten  years  after  the  completion  of  pay- 
ment to  the  United  States,  but  it  also  doubled  the 
fund  for  roads.  The  House  passed  a  bill  modeled 
on  these  recommendations,  but  the  Senate  amended 
it. 

The  propositions  in  this  enabling  act  became 
models  for  those  of  later  public  land  States.  The 
exemption  from  taxation  was  a  real  inducement  to 
purchasers  of  lands  from  the  United  States.  The 
States  soon  began  to  complain  that  they  were  los- 
ing more  in  taxes  than  they  gained  by  the  land 
grants,  and  after  the  abolition  of  the  credit  system 
a  determined  effort  was  made  by  the  States  to  rid 
themselves  of  this  restriction  on  their  taxing  power. 

Up  to  this  time  no  provision  had  been  made  for 
the  sale  of  lands  south  of  the  Ohio.  Most  of  the 

"Annals,  1801-2,  1100. 


THE   ABOLITION   OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     111 

land  in  the  North  Carolina  cession  was  covered 
with  warrants  issued  by  that  State,  but  to  the  south 
of  Tennessee  there  was  a  vast  amount  of  land  in 
the  old  territory  of  Mississippi  and  in  the  tract 
more  recently  ceded  by  Georgia,  which  would  soon 
be  overrun  by  settlers  if  some  provision  was  not 
made  for  its  survey  a*nd  sale. 

At  the  opening  of  the  second  session  of  the  Sev- 
enth Congress  petitions  were  presented  from  Mis- 
sissippi Territory  praying  for  a  land  office  and  for 
preemption  to  actual  settlers.14  On  the  last  day 
of  the  session  an  act  was  passed 15  for  the  purpose 
of  quieting  the  claims  based  upon  British  or  Span- 
ish grants  and  to  provide  for  the  survey  and  sale 
of  the  ungranted  lands.  Among  other  provisions 
were  these,  which  are  of  especial  importance  in  the 
present  study:  a  donation  of  not  more  than  six 
hundred  and  forty  acres  was  provided  for  those 
who  had  settled  before  the  Spanish  troops  finally 
evacuated  the  territory  in  1797,  provided  they  did 
not  claim  other  land  under  British  or  Spanish 
grant;16  a  preemption  was  offered  to  settlers  at 
the  date  of  the  passing  of  the  act,  but  no  interest 
was  to  be  charged  upon  payments  until  they  be- 
came due;  all  unappropriated  lands,  to  which  the 
Indian  title  had  been  extinguished,  were  to  be  sur- 
veyed into  half -section  lots,  and,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  school  reserves,  were  to  be  sold  on  the 

i<  Annals,  1801-02,  277,  422.  "  Mar.  3,  1803,  ch.  27. 

IB  Note  donations  to  French  inhabitants  in  the  Northwest.  Chap. 
IX. 


112  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

same  terms  as  lands  north  of  the  Ohio,  but  evi- 
dences of  the  public  debt  were  not  to  be  received; 
and,  finally,  two  land  offices  were  to  be  established 
in  the  territory. 

This  Act  is  typical  of  the  development  of  land 
legislation.  Sections  and  half-sections  were  offered 
at  the  auctions  in  the  Northwest ;  only  half -sections 
in  the  Southwest.  A  general  preemption  was 
granted  there ;  it  had  been  denied  in  the  other  case. 
Certificates  of  the  public  debt  might  be  received 
for  lands  north  of  the  Ohio;  not  so  in  Mississippi. 
Interest  was  not  computed  until  the  payment  was 
due,  in  the  case  of  persons  granted  preemption  in 
both  regions.  The  delay  in  completing  the  Geor- 
gia cession,  which  was  not  ratified  by  the  State 
Legislature  until  June  16,  1802,  caused  this  delay 
in  extending  the  national  land  system  over  the  re- 
gion south  of  Tennessee.  The  land  officers  found 
there  a  trying  confusion  of  British  and  Spanish 
grants,  Yazoo  frauds,  and  donation  and  preemp- 
tion claims. 

At  the  first  session  of  the  Eighth  Congress  a 
rather  determined  effort  was  made  to  alter  the 
general  land  system,  which  had  now  been  in  opera- 
tion less  than  three  years.  Both  Houses  appointed 
committees  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  alter- 
ing the  land  laws.  The  Senate  committee  had  a 
distinctly  favorable  composition,  Ohio,  the  only 
public  land  State,  being  represented  by  Senator 
Worthington. 

The  campaign  on  the  part  of  the  land  purchasers 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     113 

was  opened  by  a  very  respectful  petition  from  cer- 
tain residents  and  purchasers  in  Ohio,  presented  to 
the  House  on  December  23,  1803.17  The  improve- 
ments suggested  by  the  petitioners  were  not  rad- 
ical and  the  tone  of  the  document  was  in  marked 
contrast  to  many  which  later  were  submitted  to 
Congress.  They  approved  highly  of  the  system  of 
surveys,  but  recommended  that  the  size  of  the 
tracts  be  reduced,  suggesting  one-sixth  of  a  section 
as  a  proper  tract,  that  is,  one  hundred  and  six  and 
two-thirds  acres.  The  reasons  for  this  change  were 
that  the  tracts  were  too  large  for  the  general  pur- 
chaser, while  the  speculator  could  retard  the  devel- 
opment of  the  country  through  the  holding  of  large 
tracts.  Further  recommendations  were  that  inter- 
est be  charged  from  the  expiration  of  the  credit 
period  rather  than  from  the  date  of  sale;  that  the 
reserved  sections  be  sold  as  soon  as  possible;  that 
fractional  sections  be  sold  individually,  whereas  by 
attaching  them  to  adjoining  sections  tracts  of  more 
than  two  thousand  acres  had  been  offered;  and, 
finally,  that  entry  and  patent  fees  be  abolished  and 
that  patents  be  obtained  from  the  Registers,  rather 
than  from  the  seat  of  government. 

Such  was  the  petition  from  the  purchasers. 
There  was  no  demand  for  preemption,  no  cry  that 
the  credit  system  be  abolished.  It  was  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  men  who  had  purchased  their  land, 
and  frequently  the  interests  of  the  men  who  had 

IT  p.  L.  I.,  163.    Others  received  before  this  time,  but  not  printed. 


114  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

purchased  and  of  those  about  to  do  so  were  con- 
flicting. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  House  received  a  number 
of  petitions  from  settlers  in  the  Mississippi  terri- 
tory, which  tended  to  show  that  there  would  be  a 
great  increase  in  the  population  of  that  territory  if 
Congress  would  make  donations  to  actual  settlers. 
The  House  committee  did  not  dispute  the  state- 
ment, but  reported  adversely  because  such  boun- 
ties had  been  uniformly  refused  by  the  United 
States.18 

Other  petitions  had  been  presented  even  before 
those  which  have  been  noted,  and,  with  them  in 
mind,  the  House  committee  turned  to  Albert  Gal- 
latin,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  for  suggestions 
based  upon  his  official  experience  with  the  land 
laws.19  The  committee  submitted  certain  propo- 
sitions to  Gallatin,  and  as  they  were  based  upon 
several  petitions  from  persons  residing  in  Ohio 
they  deserve  some  attention  as  typifying  Western 
sentiment : 

"  Will  the  sales  of  the  lands  be  retarded  or  accel- 
erated; and  how  will  the  revenue  be  affected? 

"1st.  By  selling  the  lands  in  smaller  tracts. 

"  2dly.  By  charging  no  interest  on  the  amount  of 
sales  until  after  the  purchaser  has  made  default  in 
payment. 

"  3dly.  By  selling  for  cash,  instead  of  giving  the 
credit  now  authorized  by  law. 

"4thly.  By  reducing  the  price  of  the  lands. 

«  P.  L.  I,  181.  "  P.  L.  I,  182. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     115 

"  5thly.  By  making  grants  of  small  tracts  to  ac- 
tual settlers  and  improvers." 

These  proposals,  not  one  of  them  new,  are  strik- 
ing when  presented  in  a  group  at  this  time.  Every 
one  of  the  provisions  became  a  part  of  the  land 
laws,  but  half  a  century  elapsed  before  the  last 
proposition  was  passed  into  general  legislation. 

Gallatin  used  the  propositions  as  a  text,  and  re- 
plied in  a  letter  which  showed  a  splendid  grasp  of 
the  whole  situation.  It  might  be  compared  with 
Hamilton's  report  of  1790,  but  the  comparison 
must  be  very  carefully  made.  Hamilton  was  asked 
to  outline  a  land  system.  Gallatin  was  requested 
to  point  out  defects  in  the  existing  one.  Hamilton 
erred  in  rejecting  a  really  valuable  system  because 
it  had  not  been  effectively  executed,  and  his  own 
recommendations  were  apparently  based  upon  the 
immediate  needs  of  his  department,  rather  than 
upon  a  consideration  of  the  future  development  of 
the  West.  Gallatin,  with  longer  and  more  inti- 
mate experience,  took  a  stand  which  was  highly 
commendable.  He  saw  the  dangers  which  sur- 
rounded the  present  system,  and  every  one  of  his 
recommendations  was  in  line  with  future  develop- 
ment. His  letter  deserved  the  most  serious  consid- 
eration by  Congress,  and  throughout  the  next  six- 
teen years  its  prophetic  utterance  could  have  been 
studied  with  profit. 

In  brief,  he  endorsed 20  a  reduction  in  size,  reduc- 
tion in  price,  and  abolition  of  credit.  He  arrived 

20  Jan.  2,  1804.     P.  L.  I.,  183. 


116  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

at  these  conclusions  from  the  following  facts.  He 
pointed  out  the  different  sizes  of  the  tracts  offered 
north  of  the  Ohio,  as  well  as  the  different  regula- 
tions regarding  the  computation  of  interest  charges 
— the  cash  price  for  lands  being  therefore  either 
$1.84  or  $1.64  per  acre.  The  high  minimum  price 
was  established,  he  stated,  in  order  to  prevent  en- 
grossing and  also  to  secure  a  permanent  revenue. 
Both  objects  had  been  secured,  but  at  the  time 
these  acts  were  passed  the  value  of  certificates  of 
indebtedness  would  have  reduced  the  real  cash 
price  to  about  $1.50.  And  the  present  sales  were 
being  made  in  competition  with  sales  in  the  Con- 
necticut Reserve,  in  the  Military  tracts,  and  in 
Kentucky. 

So  a  reduction  in  price  was  desirable,  yet  it  must 
not  be  a  considerable  reduction.  That  would  in- 
jure former  purchasers,  and  encourage  speculators. 
But  to  reduce  the  price  to  what  may  be  considered 
as  "  the  market  price  which  actual  settlers  give  for 
small  tracts  in  similar  situations  "  would  not  pro- 
mote migrations  nor  speculations  on  a  large  scale, 
and  would  satisfy  the  demand  for  land  created  by 
the  existing  population,  as  well  as  increase  the 
revenue. 

This  reduction  in  price  must,  however,  be 
coupled  with  the  abolition  of  credit.  In  three 
years  more  than  nine  hundred  thousand  acres  had 
been  sold,  for  which  eight  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars had  been  received,  yet  almost  eleven  hundred 
thousand  dollars  remained  due  from  the  pur- 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     117 

chasers.  "Great  difficulties,"  he  continued,  "may 
attend  the  recovery  of  that  debt,  which  is  due  by 
nearly  two  thousand  individuals;  and  its  daily  in- 
crease may  ultimately  create  an  interest  hostile  to 
the  general  welfare  of  the  Union." 

In  order  that  the  cash  system  might  be  generally 
available  there  should  be  a  reduction  in  the  size  of 
tracts.  The  land  now  offered  in  whole  sections 
should  be  offered  in  half -sections,  and  the  present 
half-section  tracts  in  quarter-sections,  with  a  mini  • 
mum  price  of  $1.25  an  acre  for  the  whole  and  half- 
section  tracts,  and  $1.50  for  the  quarter-sections. 
Such  a  system,  he  believed,  would  work  for  the 
benefit  of  both  the  purchaser  and  the  government. 
It  would  mean  the  transfer  of  more  land  for  the 
same  amount  of  money,  but  the  revenue  would  be 
sure  and  easily  collectible. 

As  to  the  other  points  suggested  by  the  commit- 
tee, he  believed  that,  in  order  to  remove  any  ground 
of  complaint  from  the  old  purchasers,  interest  on 
their  installments  should  not  be  computed  until 
they  became  due,  but  only  in  the  case  of  those 
whose  previous  payments  had  been  made  on  time, 
and  who  had  not  alienated  their  property.  Pur- 
chasers who  had  already  made  payments  of  interest 
should  receive  certificates  for  the  same,  payable  in 
land. 

On  the  subject  of  preemption  Gallatin  expressed 
the  current  opinion:  "  It  is  believed  that  the  alter- 
ations which  have  been  suggested  will  enable  a 
great  portion  of  the  actual  settlers  to  become  pur- 


118  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

chasers ;  but  the  principle  of  granting  them  a  right 
of  preemption,  exclusively  (sic)  of  the  abuses  to 
which  it  is  liable,  appears  irreconcilable  with  the 
idea  of  drawing  a  revenue  from  the  sale  of  lands." 

Certain  minor  regulations  were  also  proposed. 
The  powers  of  the  Surveyor-General  should  be  ex- 
tended to  the  lands  as  far  west  as  the  Mississippi; 
district  surveyors  should  be  appointed,  to  be  paid 
by  fees,  for  making  resurveys  and  for  completing 
lines  now  left  open;  all  fees  except  for  surveys 
should  be  incorporated  in  the  price  of  the  lands; 
in  place  of  fees  there  should  be  a  salary  and  an 
increased  commission  for  the  Receivers  and  Reg- 
isters; and  the  expediency  of  excluding  the  sec- 
tions formerly  reserved  for  Congress  from  sale  was 
pronounced  doubtful.  Gallatin  closed  his  observa- 
tions by  stating  that  they  were  to  apply  only  to 
land  north  of  the  Ohio,  as  many  of  these  regula- 
tions could  not  be  well  applied  south  of  Tennessee. 
In  other  words,  he  felt  that  the  different  conditions 
rendered  a  general  system  of  disposal  inexpedient. 

The  House  committee,  of  which  Nicholson,  of 
Maryland,  was  chairman,  presented  on  January  23 
a  series  of  resolutions  which  included  every  one  of 
Gallatin's  recommendations,  although  there  were 
certain  details  to  be  filled  in  later.21 

The  issue  was,  therefore,  clearly  presented  in 
1804.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  a  com- 
mittee of  the  House  had  come  out  squarely  and 
asserted  that  the  existing  system  of  disposal  was 

21  P.  L.  I.,  189. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     119 

bad  and  should  be  promptly  altered.  But  there  is 
no  record  of  any  debate  on  these  proposed  altera- 
tions. It  is  evident  that  these  recommendations 
were  eminently  proper,  and  yet  it  is  just  as  evident 
why  they  could  not  be  carried  into  legislation. 
Every  purchaser  and  speculator  was  opposed  to 
the  abolition  of  the  credit  system,  while  the  old 
States  were  generally  opposed  to  any  reduction  in 
price  or  in  size  of  tracts.  And  yet  in  good  times 
the  indebtedness  had  grown  to  threatening  propor- 
tions— what  would  happen  under  less  prosperous 
conditions?  Gallatin's  letter  and  the  resolutions  of 
this  committee  must  be  classed,  unfortunately, 
among  the  recommendations  which  are  made  in 
advance  of  their  time. 

Although  the  abolition  of  credit  and  the  reduc- 
tion in  price  were  not  accepted  at  this  time,  several 
of  the  other  recommendations  were  incorporated  in 
the  Act  making  provision  for  the  disposal  of  lands 
in  the  Indiana  Territory.22  Among  these  were  the 
following:  All  public  lands,  north  or  south  of  the 
Ohio,  were  to  be  offered  in  quarter-sections;  the 
powers  of  the  Surveyor-General  were  extended 
over  the  lands,  north  of  the  Ohio,  to  the  Mississippi 
River;  deputy  surveyors  were  to  be  appointed  to 
run  the  minor  lines ;  interest  was  not  to  be  charged 
until  after  a  payment  was  due,  but  the  failure  to 
pay  promptly  caused  the  interest  to  be  computed 
from  the  day  of  sale;  all  fees  were  abolished,  ex- 
cept certain  postage  charges  on  sending  the  final 

22  March  26,  1804,  ch.  35. 


120  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

certificate  to  Washington  and  receiving  the  pat- 
ent;23 and  the  Registers  and  Receivers  were  al- 
lowed an  additional  commission  of  one-half  per 
cent,  of  all  moneys  paid  for  lands  sold  in  their 
offices,  as  well  as  a  salary  of  five  hundred  dollars.24 

These  provisions  were  among  those  reported  by 
the  committee.  Other  portions  of  the  Act  may  be 
noted.  Land  offices  were  to  be  established  at  De- 
troit, Vincennes,  and  Kaskaskia,  the  public  sales 
to  be  announced  by  proclamation  of  the  President. 
A  form  of  procedure  was  outlined  for  claimants 
under  French  or  British  grants,  and  the  Registers 
and  Receivers  were  to  act  as  commissioners  within 
their  respective  districts.  The  sixteenth  section  in 
every  township  was  reserved  for  schools,  and  an 
entire  township  in  each  district  for  a  seminary.  The 
salt  springs  and  adjacent  lands  were  to  be  reserved, 
and  the  Congressional  reserves  under  the  acts  of 
1785,  1796,  and  1800  were  to  be  sold.25  Persons 
who  had  received  a  preemption  in  Symmes'  tract 
were  allowed  a  further  time  for  payment.  Frac- 
tional sections  might  be  sold  singly  or  by  uniting 
two  or  more,  and,  finally,  preemption  was  extended 
to  three  persons,  one  of  them  the  proprietor  of  a 
mill  dam. 

The  Indiana  Act  of  1804,  in  spite  of  its  local 
character,  contained  several  provisions  of  general 
application.  Most  important  of  these  was  the 

as  Survey  fees  were  charged  only  for  dividing  half-section  lots. 
»4The  salaries  at  Marietta  were  to  be  $200.00. 
"The  upset  price  raised  to  $8.00  in  1805,  and  reduced  to  $4.00 
in  1808. 


THE   ABOLITION   OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     121 

clause  permitting  the  sale  of  quarter-section  tracts. 
This  was  in  line  with  the  demands  of  Western  Con- 
gressmen and  settlers  from  the  earliest  period.  The 
question  had  been  raised  and  discussed  time  and 
again.  Its  incorporation  in  the  present  bill  was 
probably  due  directly  to  the  recommendation  of 
Gallatin  and  the  House  committee,  but  it  was  in 
keeping  with  the  general  development  of  the  land 
system.  Another  provision  of  general  application 
was  that  which  authorized  the  computation  of  in- 
terest only  after  a  payment  was  due.  This  had 
been  foreshadowed  by  the  preemption  clauses  in 
the  acts  of  1801  and  1803.  Of  course  it  materially 
reduced  the  charges  of  the  purchaser  who  availed 
himself  of  the  credit  system,  but  in  the  case  of  the 
man  who  could  pay  cash  the  price  was  reduced 
from  $1.84  to  $1.64  an  acre,  a  very  considerable 
reduction.  The  sale  of  fractional  sections  singly 
or  by  uniting  two  or  more,  the  abolition  of  fees, 
the  provision  for  deputy  surveyors,  and  the  new 
compensation  for  Registers  and  Receivers,  were  all 
general  provisions.  With  this  act  the  questionable 
practice  of  reserving  three  sections  in  each  town- 
ship "  for  the  future  disposition  of  Congress  "  was 
abandoned. 

With  the  passage  of  this  act  it  was  possible  for 
a  settler  to  secure  a  tract  of  public  land  for  the 
sum  of  $262.40,  provided  he  was  able  to  secure  the 
quarter-section  at  the  minimum  price  or  purchased 
it  at  private  sale,  and  in  either  case  paid  cash.  But 
there  were  still  surveying  fees  to  be  met,  based 


122  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

upon  the  amount  of  work  to  be  performed  by  the 
deputy  surveyors. 

On  the  same  day  that  the  Indiana  Act  extended 
the  land  system  to  the  Mississippi  River  in  the 
Northwest,  the  President  approved  the  first  act 
dealing  with  the  land  in  the  newly  acquired  Loui- 
siana country.  The  treaty  of  cession  had  been 
signed  on  April  30,  1803,  the  Senate  advised  rati- 
fication on  October  19,  and  a  temporary  govern- 
ment was  provided  by  act  of  October  31.  On  De- 
cember 20  Governor  Claiborne,  of  Mississippi  Ter- 
ritory, and  General  Wilkinson,  the  Commissioners 
appointed  by  President  Jefferson  for  the  purpose, 
received  the  province  from  M.  Laussat,  the  French 
Commissioner.  By  this  acquisition  some  875,025 
square  miles  were  added  to  the  territories  of  the 
United  States,  but  not  all  of  it  to  the  public  do- 
main, for  the  United  States  agreed  to  protect  the 
property  rights  of  the  inhabitants. 

The  Act  of  October  31,  1803,  which  went  into 
operation  on  the  cession,  had  vested  extraordinary 
powers  in  the  President  and  merely  substituted  his 
appointees  for  the  late  officials,  so  measures  were 
promptly  taken  to  draw  up  a  more  elaborate  form 
of  government;  moreover,  the  reports26  which 
were  received  of  the  conduct  of  Spanish  officials 
and  American  adventurers  in  Louisiana  in  the  pe- 
riod between  the  news  of  the  cession  and  the  actual 
transfer  of  jurisdiction,  caused  Congress  to  take  a 
decided  stand  in  defense  of  the  national  domain. 

26  P.  L.  I.,  187. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     123 

The  only  features  of  the  "  Act  for  erecting  Loui- 
siana into  two  Territories,  and  providing  for  the 
temporary  government  thereof,"27  which  concern 
this  discussion,  are  those  which  deal  with  the  lands 
within  the  region.  The  political  and  constitutional 
features  can  be  passed  by.  As  the  bill  passed  the 
Senate  on  February  18,  1804,  it  contained  a  pro- 
vision prohibiting  unauthorized  settlements  in 
Louisiana  and  providing  fine  and  imprisonment  for 
the  settling  or  surveying  of  lands  there.  The  Pres- 
ident was  authorized  to  employ  the  military  to  re- 
move such  intruders.  An  attempt  was  made  in 
the  House  to  strike  out  this  clause,  without  suc- 
cess.28 

If  certain  members  of  the  House  opposed  the 
penalties  for  unauthorized  settlement  on  the  lands 
of  the  United  States  in  Louisiana,  there  were 
others  who  believed  the  Senate  bill  entirely  too 
mild,  and  it  was  Mr.  Rhea,  of  Tennessee,  who  of- 
fered an  amendment  which  would  render  null  and 
void  all  grants  and  attempts  to  secure  grants  of 
land  which,  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  of  St.  Ilde- 
fonso,29  were  in  the  crown  or  government  of  Spain. 
Now,  the  treaty  of  St.  Ildefonso  had  been  signed 
on  October  1,  1800,  the  actual  retrocession  to 
France  did  not  take  place  until  November  30, 
1803,  and  twenty  days  later  France  turned  over 
the  province  to  our  commissioners.  This  amend- 
ment was  a  vigorous  attempt  to  block  the  devices 

27  March  26,  1804,  ch.  38.  a»  Annals,  1803-4,  1185. 

2»  Between  Spain  and  France. 


124  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

of  French,  Spanish,  and  American  land-grabbers, 
but  it  was  bound  to  work  hardship  upon  legitimate 
settlers  who  had  entered  Louisiana  during  those 
three  years.  The  amendment  was  promptly  at- 
tacked, and  a  variety  of  reasons  advanced  against 
it.  It  would  nullify  the  grants  of  France,  and 
surely  France  was  qualified  to  make  grants  during 
the  period ;  such  a  law  would  be  judicial  rather  than 
legislative,  for  the  courts  should  pass  on  the  valid- 
ity of  the  grants;  and  such  hasty  legislation  would 
cast  suspicion  upon  the  Spanish  government.  But 
the  effective  reply  was  simply  this :  We  know  that 
fraudulent  grants  have  been  made,  and  this  act 
will  prove  a  warning  to  second  purchasers.  Be- 
tween the  day  on  which  the  Senate  passed  the  bill 
and  the  date  of  this  debate  President  Jefferson  had 
submitted  to  Congress  further  information  regard- 
ing the  antedated  grants  of  lands  in  Louisiana,30 
and,  in  connection  with  the  earlier  information, 
Congress  was  warranted  in  keeping  on  its  guard. 
Rhea's  amendment  was  carried  in  the  House,  but 
the  Senate  promptly  struck  out  this  provision  by 
the  decisive  vote  of  27-1.  The  House  refused  to 
recede  on  this  section  by  the  close  vote  of  46-45. 
As  the  result  of  a  conference  the  section  was 
adopted  with  two  provisos  added  which  protected 
the  actual  settlers  either  in  grants  secured  or  pro- 
ceedings leading  to  a  grant,  provided  they  were 
agreeable  to  the  laws,  usages,  and  customs  of  the 
Spanish  government.  These  grants  were  not  to 

so  P.  L.  I-  193. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     125 

exceed  one  mile  square  of  land,  with  such  addi- 
tional amount  as  had  been  allowed  for  the  wife 
and  family  of  the  settler.31 

The  act  as  passed  was  more  just  than  the  orig- 
inal House  provision,  but  it  still  was  unjust,  be- 
cause there  were  many  bona  fide  grants,  made  be- 
fore the  news  of  the  treaty  of  St.  Ildefonso  reached 
Louisiana,  which  would  not  be  protected.  In  the 
endeavor  to  strike  the  land-grabbers  some  innocent 
grantees  were  sure  to  suffer.  But  this  act  is  of 
further  significance.  No  donations  or  preemptions 
were  offered.  Instead,  the  prospective  squatter 
was  met  by  the  rigid  penalties  imposed  for  unau- 
thorized settling.  The  act,  therefore,  was  more 
unyielding  than  any  of  the  former  acts  relating  to 
acquired  territory,  but  later  legislation  provided 
the  preemptions  and  donations  which  were  at  this 
time  denied.  The  next  year  an  act 32  made  the  first 
provision  for  the  determination  and  confirmation  of 
French  and  Spanish  grants  in  Louisiana,  but  it  is 
of  especial  importance  in  this  connection  because 
it  extended  the  American  land  surveys  over  the  ac- 
quired region,  supplanting  the  systems  of  Spain 
and  France.  The  powers  of  the  Surveyor  of  Pub- 
lic Lands,  south  of  Tennessee,  was  extended  over 
the  territory  of  Orleans,  and  the  surveys  were  to 
be  the  same  "  as  nearly  as  the  nature  of  the  country 
will  admit "  as  those  northwest  of  the  Ohio. 

si  See    description    of    Louisiana    communicated    with    Jefferson's 
message  of  Nov.  14,  1803.    Annals,  1804-5,  1498. 
a*  March  2,  1805,  ch.  26. 


126  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

In  order  to  handle  the  growing  business  in  con- 
nection with  the  public  lands,  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives decided  upon  the  appointment  of  a 
standing  committee  in  December,  1805.  Before 
that  time  select  committees  had  been  appointed  in 
each  House  to  consider  various  land  questions  as 
they  might  arise.  It  was  not  until  December,  1816, 
that  the  Senate  provided  for  a  standing  committee, 
and  at  that  session  the  House  added  the  Committee 
on  Private  Land  Claims. 

This  first  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands  took 
a  high  stand  against  the  credit  system,  yet  was 
forced  to  see  its  recommendations  rejected.  Two 
strong  reports,  hostile  to  the  system,  were  pre- 
sented at  this  session.  One  was  submitted  by  John 
Randolph,  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  on  March  22,  1806,  "  that  the  public  lands 
form  a  great  and  increasing  source  of  revenue,  al- 
though the  money  accruing  from  their  sale  cannot 
be  considered  in  the  nature  of  a  tax.  Your  com- 
mittee can  discover  no  principle  that  will  justify 
the  extension  of  a  further  credit  to  purchasers  who 
have  received  a  fair  equivalent  (rapidly  increasing 
in  value)  for  the  sums  which  they  have  stipulated 
to  pay,  that  would  not  more  forcibly  warrant  a 
similar  extension  of  credit  on  custom-house  bonds, 
and  other  debts  due  to  the  public;  and  they  dread 
(if  the  present  wise  and  salutary  provisions  relat- 
ing to  the  sale  of  public  lands  be  once  relaxed)  lest 
that  important  branch  of  our  public  resources 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     127 

should  be  altogether  dried  up  and  lost."33  Ran- 
dolph held  to  the  Revolutionary  theory  that  the 
lands  should  be  considered  a  vast  source  of  reve- 
nue, and  from  that  point  of  view  any  extension  of 
the  credit  system  was  bad  business. 

The  second  report  was  from  the  Committee  on 
Public  Lands.  On  March  26,  1806,  it  had  been  di- 
rected to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  repealing 
the  credit  provisions  of  the  land  acts,  and  its  re- 
port was  submitted  April  3.34 

This  report  exhibited  the  following  facts: 

Balance  due  frotn  purchasers  in  Ohio,  exclusive  of  interest. 

On  October  1,  1803 $1,092,390 

On  October  1,  1804 , 1,434,212 

On  October  1,  1805 2,094,305 

The  debt  had  nearly  doubled  in  the  course  of  the 
last  two  years. 

On  January  1,  1806,  there  was  due  $229,000  on 
account  of  purchases  made  before  January  1,  1802. 
This  amount  must  be  paid  during  the  year,  or  the 
land  be  forfeited.  And  it  was  due  from  three  hun- 
dred and  nine  persons.  No  sales  or  reversions  un- 
der forfeitures  had  up  to  that  time  taken  place, 
but  some  must  certainly  occur  if  the  law  was  to  be 
rigidly  enforced,  and  these  penalties  would  not  be 
satisfactory.  Few  persons  would  dare  to  bid 
against  their  unfortunate  neighbors,  and  if  the 

83  p.  L.  I.,  284.  84  p.  L.  I.,  286. 


128  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

lands  reverted  to  the  government  the  tenant  would 
remain  as  an  encumbrance,  who  would  have  to 
be  evicted  before  another  sale  could  take  place. 
"  It  might  be  added,  that  few  strangers  would  run 
the  risk  of  bidding  for  property  at  a  vendue,  when 
the  united  interest  of  the  whole  neighborhood  was 
opposed  to  the  sale." 85 

A  letter  from  Gallatin  accompanied  the  report, 
in  which  he  restated  his  opinions  of  1804.  He 
feared  the  extension  of  the  debtor  class  might  cre- 
ate "  in  that  section  of  the  Union,  a  powerful  inter- 
est, hostile  to  the  Federal  government,  and  which 
would  endanger  both  the  outstanding  debt  and  the 
lands  unsold."  If  the  present  system  was  to  be 
continued,  he  held  that  it  must  be  more  rigidly  en- 
forced. 

So  the  committee  recommended  the  repeal  of  all 
credit  provisions. 

Two  years  before,  a  committee  of  the  House  had 
made  a  similar  report,  and  the  House  had  declined 
to  act;  now,  in  the  face  of  the  growing  indebted- 
ness, Congress  either  should  have  abolished  the 
credit  system  or  else  should  have  insisted  upon  its 
rigid  enforcement.  But  Congress  did  neither.  Its 
action  was  so  carefully  concealed  that  it  has  escaped 

so  From  1801  to  1806  the  only  forfeiture  liable  was  one-twentieth 
of  the  purchase  price,  after  that  date  some  of  the  purchasers  were 
forfeiting  one-fourth  of  the  price  and  sometimes  more.  The  one- 
twentieth  was  the  deposit  paitt  on  the  day  of  sale,  the  one-fourth 
within  forty  days,  but  the  latter,  and  all  subsequent  payments,  were 
not  considered  forfeited  until  one  year  after  the  day  when  the  last 
installment  fell  due. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     129 

the  attention  of  many  students  of  the  subject.  The 
act  was  entitled  "  an  Act  to  suspend  the  sale  of 
certain  lands  in  the  state  of  Ohio  and  the  Indiana 
territory,"36  and  it  provided  for  the  suspension  of 
the  sixth  condition  of  the  fifth  section  of  the  Act 
of  1800,  chapter  55,  in  favor  of  purchasers  who 
were  actually  resident  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of 
this  act.  It  really  should  have  been  entitled  "  an 
Act  to  extend  the  credit  on  lands  purchased  in 
Ohio,"  for  such  was  its  object.  It  postponed  all 
forfeitures,  in  the  case  of  actual  settlers,  until  Oc- 
tober first,  next. 

Such  was  the  first  of  the  "  relief  acts "  which 
were  caused  by  the  credit  system.  Twelve  were 
passed  before  it  fell  in  1820,  and  after  that  date 
about  as  many  more  were  needed  to  extricate  the 
settlers  and  speculators  who  had  been  entangled  in 
its  meshes. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  view  with  patience  this  first 
relief  act.'  Congress  had  twice  been  warned  by 
Gallatin  and  by  the  House  committees  against  the 
dangers  of  the  credit  system,  and  yet  it  not  only 
retained  the  source  of  evils,  but  introduced  a  fur- 
ther complicating  element,  the  extension  of  credit 
and  the  suspension  of  forfeitures. 

Under  the  circumstances  the  credit  system  was  a 
vicious  one.  A  strong  government,  able  and  will- 
ing to  enforce  its  penalties,  might  well  dispose  of 
the  public  domain  in  limited  tracts  under  such  a 
system.  But  the  dangers  were  too  great  for  the 

se  April  15,  1806,  ch.  28. 


ISO  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

United  States  at  that  time.  The  rapid  increase  of 
the  debtor  class  in  the  Western  regions  would  be 
followed  by  the  exertion  of  a  strong  political  in- 
fluence in  Congress,  and  laws,  unjust  to  faithful 
purchasers,  might  be  expected.  And  with  this  in- 
crease in  the  debtors  would  come  the  time  when 
the  government  could  not  carry  out  its  forfeitures. 
The  influence  of  the  community  in  the  execution 
of  the  land  laws  must  be  noted.  It  was  the  com- 
munity which  made  it  unwise  for  a  man  to  pur- 
chase the  forfeited  improvements  of  an  older  set- 
tler or  to  bid  in  the  improvements  of  the  squatter. 
Before  a  single  forfeiture  had  been  made,  the 
House  committee  pointed  out  the  difficulties  which 
Would  be  met  in  an  endeavor  to  enforce  the  pen- 
alties of  the  credit  system.  Moreover,  it  fostered 
land  speculations  and  led  to  the  evils  of  absentee- 
ism. "  Good  times  "  were  essential  for  its  success- 
ful operation,  but  Indian  raids,  poor  crops,  a  de- 
ranged currency,  or,  as  happened,  war  itself,  would 
throw  it  into  confusion  and  drag  the  dreaming 
speculator  down  with  the  unfortunate  settler. 

Yet  Congress  would  neither  abolish  this  system 
nor  would  it  even  insist  upon  its  rigid  operation. 
And  the  reasons  are  not  difficult  to  find.  Every 
person  who  hoped  to  purchase  Western  lands, 
whether  as  a  settler  or  as  a  speculator,  insisted 
upon  the  retention  of  the  system.  And  in  the  pres- 
ence of  these  practical  demands  the  warnings  of 
Gallatin  were  powerless. 

For  the  next  fourteen  years  the  story  of  the  de- 


velopment  of  the  general  land  system  is  concerned 
with  the  struggle  over  this  question  of  credit. 
Practically  no  changes  were  made  in  the  general 
law  during  that  period.  After  April  30,  1806,  no 
new  purchaser  could  pay  for  his  land  in  certificates 
of  the  public  debt,  and  after  1807  provision  was 
several  times  made  for  settlers  to  become  tenants 
at  will  of  vacant  lands  before  they  were  placed  on 
sale  by  the  United  States,  but  aside  from  these 
changes  the  land  laws  of  1800  and  1804  remained 
in  operation  throughout  the  period  and  were  grad- 
ually extended  over  the  public  domain. 

During  these  years  Congress  perfected  its  legis- 
lation regarding  foreign  titles  and  military  boun- 
ties, grants  for  education  were  increased  and  appli- 
cations for  land  for  internal  improvements  were 
considered,  while  futile  attempts  were  made  to  se- 
cure a  general  donation  or  preemption  for  actual 
settlers.  All  these  questions  are  discussed  in  other 
chapters.  It  seems  advisable  here  to  center  atten- 
tion on  the  growth  and  abolition  of  the  credit  sys- 
tem as  the  most  important  question  of  general  in- 
terest during  the  next  fifteen  years. 

About  this  time  the  operations  of  the  land  sys- 
tem became  involved  in  the  general  confusion  which 
marked  the  approach  of  the  second  war  with  Eng- 
land. The  West  had  shared  in  the  general  pros- 
perity occasioned  by  the  growth  of  commerce  dur- 
ing the  Napoleonic  wars.  Money  was  easy  and 
speculation  was  rife.  But,  on  December  22,  1807, 
the  embargo  was  passed  as  a  culmination  to  Jef- 


132  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

f arson's  policy   of  "  peaceful  coercion  "  and  the 
West  suffered  with  the  rest  of  the  nation. 

Petitions  came  out  of  the  West  praying  for  some 
relief  because,  owing  to  the  embargo  and  the  sus- 
pension of  commerce  and  the  "stay  laws"  in  the 
old  States,  many  persons  were  threatened  with  a 
forfeiture  of  their  lands.  The  credit  system,  so 
dangerous  to  purchasers  in  good  times,  now  threat- 
ened to  crush  them  utterly. 

Jeremiah  Morrow,  of  Ohio,  one  of  the  sanest 
men  who  ever  handled  land  legislation,  was  chair- 
man of  the  House  Committee  on  Public  Lands.  In 
his  report  of  January  19,  1809,  he  recommended 
an  extension  of  credit  because  of  the  unfortunate 
financial  conditions,  but  coupled  this  relief  with 
recommendations  for  the  abolition  of  the  credit 
system  and  a  reduction  of  the  price  of  lands.37 

But  the  House  was  not  ready  to  follow  the  lead 
of  Morrow,  and  preferred  instead  the  Senate  bill 
extending  the  time  fpr  making  payments. 

This  was  the  first  general  extension  of  credit.38 
It  applied  to  all  purchasers,  save  those  who  had  se- 
cured a  preemption,  whose  lands  had  not  already 
been  resold  by  the  United  States  or  reverted  for 
non-payment,  and  the  time  for  whose  last  payment 
might  expire  before  January  first.  Such  persons 
were  allowed  two  years  for  the  payment  of  the  resi- 
due of  the  principal  due.  This  extension  was  to 
commence  one  year  from  the  day  on  which  the  last 

«»  P.  L.  I.,  909.  A  similar  resolution  was  introduced  by  Boyle 
of  Kentucky,  on  January  4.  **  Mar.  2,  1809,  ch.  26. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     183 

payment  was  due,  or,  in  other  words,  at  the  end  of 
the  one  year's  grace  allowed  under  the  law  of  1800. 
But  all  arrears  of  interest  must  be  paid  on  the  day 
the  extension  was  to  commence,  and  the  residue  of 
the  principal,  with  interest,  must  be  paid  in  two 
equal  annual  payments.  Failure  to  pay  arrears  of 
interest,  or  the  accruing  interest  on  the  last  two 
payments,  would  cause  a  forfeiture. 

This  act  applied  to  purchasers  before  January  1, 
1805,  the  only  ones  then  subject  to  forfeiture  of 
their  lands,  and  as  Congress  had  repealed  the  em- 
bargo on  March  1,  it  possibly  thought  that  the 
need  of  relief  would  vanish  with  one  of  the  occa- 
sions for  it.  It  had  established,  however,  in  the  case 
of  certain  purchasers  of  the  public  lands,  a  credit 
period  of  seven  years.  Naturally  all  other  pur- 
chasers were  going  to  demand  the  same  considera- 
tion. 

At  the  next  session  the  Ohio  Legislature  peti- 
tioned for  an  extension  of  the  credit  period,  and 
Congress  passed  the  desired  act.  As  previously, 
the  measure  was  introduced  in  the  Senate,  w^here 
it  was  spoken  of  as  a  bill  granting  preemption. 
There  was  some  debate  on  the  measure  in  the 
House,  but  no  new  facts  were  presented.39  There 
were  members  who  feared  the  growth  of  this  debtor 
class,  there  were  others  who  favored  the  present 
system,  but  hoped  that  cash  sales  would  soon  be  es- 
tablished, while  others  defended  the  credit  system 
as  essential  to  purchases  of  land  by  the  poor.  But 

39  Annals,  1809-10,  1999. 


134  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

the  measure  passed  principally  because  of  the  ef- 
fects of  the  commercial  restrictions  and  because  the 
act  simply  extended  the  favor  conferred  upon 
others  at  the  last  session. 

This  Act  of  1810 40  applied  to  purchasers  of  six 
hundred  and  forty  acres,  or  less,  before  January  1, 
1806,  but  was  limited  to  persons  who  had  actually 
inhabited  and  cultivated  any  one  tract  for  one  year 
within  five  years  of  the  date  of  purchase.  This 
provision  was  designed  to  prevent  speculators  from 
securing  the  benefits  of  the  act.  And  a  further 
favor  was  extended  to  small  purchasers  by  the  pro- 
vision that  lands,  less  than  six  hundred  and  forty 
acres,  which  might  have  reverted  since  January  1, 
last,  might  be  reentered  by  the  original  purchasers 
with  a  credit  of  all  former  payments  and  the  ben- 
efits of  the  present  extension  of  time.41  The  re- 
entry must  be  made  before  June  1,  and  the  land 
must  not  previously  have  been  resold  by  the  gov- 
ernment. 

No  relief  act  was  passed  at  the  session  of  1810- 
1811,  although  the  legislatures  of  Ohio  and  Indi- 
ana Territory  sought  such  action.  They  desired  a 
remission  of  interest  as  well  as  an  extension  of 
time ;  the  General  Assembly  of  Ohio,  for  example, 
suggesting  that  citizens  about  to  lose  their  lands 
might  have  the  following  relief:42  If  they  had 
paid  one  installment  they  might  relinquish  it  and 

40  April  30,  1810,  ch.  36. 

«iThe  act  of  1809  did  not  prevent  forfeitures  between  January 
1st  and  April  30,  1810.  «  P.  L.  II.,  252. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     135 

enter  the  land  at  the  original  terms;  if  they  had 
paid  two  or  more  they  might  lose  the  first  and 
credit  the  balance  on  the  new  entry.  But  these 
provisions  were  only  to  extend  to  purchasers  of  one 
section  or  less. 

At  the  following  session  two  committees  re- 
ported on  the  credit  system.  Morrow,  for  the 
House  committee,  was  opposed  to  any  remission 
of  interest  or  to  any  permanent  extension  of  the 
credit,  although  on  account  of  the  Indian  wars  and 
the  low  price  of  produce  he  believed  that  an  exten- 
sion of  one  year  on  purchases  in  the  Northwest 
due  before  December  22,  1812,  might  be  granted.43 
Worthington,  for  the  Senate  committee,  recom- 
mended the  sale  of  eighty-acre  tracts,  a  reduction 
in  price  to  one  dollar  an  acre,  a  discontinuance  of 
credit,  and  an  extension  of  credit  to  the  present 
delinquents.44 

Once  more  Congress  refused  to  follow  the  advice 
of  its  committees  and  passed  a  relief  act  instead. 
This  applied  only  to  purchasers  of  lands  northwest 
of  the  Ohio,  holding  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  or 
less,  secured  before  April  1,  1808.45  They  were 
allowed  three  years  from  January  1,  1813,  and  the 
balance  was  to  be  paid  in  four  annual  payments, 
commencing  on  that  date.  But  before  the  end  of 
the  session  a  supplementary  act46  applied  the  ex- 
tension to  assignees  of  purchasers,  if  actual  resi- 

43  P.  L.  II.,  256.     Harrison's  Tippecanoe  campaign. 
4*  P.  L.  II.,  439.     The  actual  forfeitures  to  September  30,  1811, 
amounted  to  $98,579. 

45  April  25,  1812,  ch.  77.  46  July  6,  1812,  ch.  134. 


136  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

dents,  and  provided  for  the  reentry  of  lands  re- 
verting between  April  1  and  August  1  of  that  year. 
The  extension  of  credit  had  now  been  increased  to 
three  years.47 

It  was  at  this  session  that  a  General  Land  Office 
was  at  last  established.48  A  Commissioner  was  ap- 
pointed who  took  over  the  executive  duties  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  regard  to  the  public 
lands.  He  became  custodian  of  the  books,  plats, 
and  other  records  at  Washington,  and  through  his 
office  the  patents  were  issued.  From  this  date  until 
1849  the  General  Land  Office  was  a  bureau  of  the 
Treasury  Department,  when  it  was  transferred  to 
the  newly  created  Department  of  the  Interior.  The 
early  advocates  of  a  General  Land  Office  had  in 
mind  a  convenient  central  bureau  for  the  sale  of 
lands,  but  as  established  the  office  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  actual  disposal  of  the  lands.  It  was  a 
central  executive  and  administrative  bureau. 

If  the  commercial  restrictions  and  the  Indian 
wars  made  relief  measures  necessary,  the  actual 
outbreak  of  war  with  Great  Britain  rendered  them 
even  more  justifiable.  The  frontiers  were  ravaged 
and  many  of  the  settlers,  who  otherwise  would 
have  been  endeavoring  to  meet  their  annual  install- 
ments, were  in  the  army,  while  the  deranged  con- 
dition of  commerce  and  trade  and  the  currency 

«TThe  first  three  year  extension  was  the  act  of  April  10,  1812, 
which  allowed  that  privilege  on  the  lands  of  soldiers  who  had  been 
killed  or  wounded  in  the  Wabash  Campaign  of  November,  1811. 
Two  weeks  later  similar  terms  were  granted  all  delinquent  settlers 
In  the  Northwest,  as  above.  48  April  25,  1812,  ch.  68. 


THE   ABOLITION   OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     137 

made  the  credit  system  more  burdensome  than 
ever. 

In  December,  1812,  Morrow  returned  to  his  old 
plan,  to  abolish  credit,  sell  eighty-acre  tracts,  and 
fix  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  the  acre  as  the 
minimum  price,  but  yet  give  two  years'  grace  on 
payments  due  on  January  1,  1814.49  But  Con- 
gress simply  passed  a  relief  act,50  now  in  general 
terms,  giving  a  three-year  extension  of  credit  to 
purchasers  prior  to  April  1,  1809,  on  tracts  of  a 
section  or  less.  The  next  year  similar  legislation 
favored  purchasers  before  April  1,  1810.51 

With  the  close  of  the  War  of  1812  came  financial 
disorders  and  a  period  of  wild-cat  banking  in  which 
enormous  speculations  took  place.52  The  amount 
of  money  due  the  United  States  for  land  was 
reaching  a  scandalous  figure  for  those  days.  The 
system  was  undeniably  bad,  yet  Congress  seemed 
unwilling  to  abandon  it. 

In  1815  the  usual  extension  was  granted.  The 
next  year  the  extension  was  only  offered  to  settlers 
in  Mississippi  Territory  for  a  period  of  two  years 
and  eight  months,  and  they  were  permitted  to  enter 
reverted  lands.  In  1817  no  extension  was  granted, 
but  the  next  year  an  extension  of  one  year  was 
granted  on  tracts  under  six  hundred  and  forty 
acres.  In  1819  and  1820  similar  acts  were  passed, 
the  period  of  forfeiture  being  finally  suspended 
until  March  31,  1821. 

*»  P.  L.  II.,  730.   oo  March  3,  1813,  ch.  43.  01  Fet).  19,  1814,  ch.  14. 
52  Emerick,  The  Credit  System  and  the  Public  Domain,  6. 


138  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

A  very  slight  step  toward  a  cash  system,  and  one 
that  had  been  urged  for  some  time,  was  the  Act  of 
1817,  which  permitted  the  sale  of  six  sections  in 
each  township  in  quarter-sections  or  half-quarter- 
sections.63  For  the  first  time  land  could  be  offered 
in  eighty-acre  lots.  To  be  sure,  nothing  was  said 
about  the  credit  system  in  this  act,  but  a  poor  man 
could  now  purchase  less  land  and  owe  less  money, 
and  every  attack  on  that  system  was  based  on  a  re- 
duction in  size  and  in  price.  Both  Jared  Mans- 
field, the  Surveyor-General,  and  Josiah  Meigs,54 
the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  op- 
posed the  division  into  eighty-acre  lots,  the  one  on 
the  ground  of  the  expense  of  the  surveys,  for  even 
the  quarter-sections  were  not  then  surveyed,  and 
the  other  because  he  believed  it  would  be  possible 
for  shrewd  speculators  and  others  to  select  the  best 
land  in  small  tracts  and  have  the  use  of  the  less 
desirable  land  round  about.  As  Meigs  said :  "  I 
presume  the  object  of  the  committee  is  to  accom- 
modate poor  persons;  I  am  apprehensive  that  no 
accommodation  will  be  produced,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, they  will  become  a  prey  to  speculators.  At 
present  a  man  who  has  eighty  dollars  can  have 
from  the  public  a  farm  of  one  hundred  and  sixty 
acres  for  five  years;  if  he  cannot  then  pay  the  bal- 
ance he  has  not  paid  a  heavy  rent;  if  he  has  im- 
proved his  farm,  and  it  sells  for  more  than  is  due 
to  the  United  States,  he  receives  the  surplus 

os  Feb.  22,  1817,  ch.  15.     The  sections  were  numbers  2,  5,  20,  23, 
30,  33.  •*  P.  L.  III.,  277. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     139 

money;  if  he  has  not  improved  it  so  much  as  to 
make  it  sell,  it  reverts  to  the  United  States,  and 
he  may  for  eighty  dollars  take  it  for  five  years 
longer." 

In  1819  Morrow,  who  had  represented  Ohio  in 
the  Senate  since  1813,  and  who  had  been  chairman 
of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Lands  since  its 
establishment  in  1816,  made  another  effort  to  wipe 
out  the  credit  system.  He  presented  a  bill  for  cash 
sales,  at  a  dollar  and  a  half  minimum,  and  eighty- 
acre  tracts.55  Various  attempts  were  made  to 
amend  the  bill  in  the  Senate,  without  success,  and 
the  bill  passed,  only  to  be  laid  on  the  table  in  the 
House. 

That  some  action  was  absolutely  necessary  was 
evident  from  the  fact  that  on  September  30,  1819, 
the  sum  of  $22,000,657  was  reported  due  the 
United  States  from  land  purchasers,  while  a  total 
of  $412,678  had  been  forfeited  to  the  nation  dur- 
ing the  existence  of  the  credit  system.56  The  ques- 
tion was  brought  before  the  Senate  on  a  resolution 
of  Mr.  Leake,  of  Mississippi,  followed  by  a  bill 
from  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands.  A  general 
debate  followed.  Walker,  of  Alabama,  offered  an 
amendment  that  purchasers  of  land  before  the  bill 
went  into  operation  should  have  the  privilege  of 
relinquishing  the  land  for  resale,  the  government 
to  return  to  the  purchaser  all  the  land  brought 

06  Annals,   1818-19,  241.     P.  L.  III.,  413. 

Be  p.  L.  III.,  460.  There  were  balances  unpaid  on  lands  pur- 
chased in  Ohio  twenty  years  ago.  Annals,  1819-30,  444. 


140  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

over  the  then  minimum  price,  but  not  more  than 
the  purchaser  had  already  paid  to  the  United 
States.  Such  a  provision  was  greatly  desired  in 
Alabama,  where,  during  the  days  of  wild-cat  bank- 
ing, cotton  lands  had  been  bought  at  enormous 
prices.  But  this  amendment  would  have  permitted 
the  person  who  relinquished  the  land  to  buy  it  in 
at  the  resale,  which  would  mean  practically  at  the 
minimum  price,  for  no  one  would  dare  bid  against 
a  person  seeking  to  repurchase  his  improvements. 
Some  of  the  Western  senators  favored  Walker's 
amendment,  but  it  was  defeated,  8-29.  Edwards, 
of  Illinois,  presented  an  amendment  designed  to 
benefit  the  squatter,  for  it  would  have  given  an  ac- 
tual settler  on  land  already  offered  for  sale  a  pre- 
emption and  right  to  purchase  under  the  existing 
system  up  to  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres.  This 
would  have  resulted  in  a  mongrel  system,  part  cash 
and  part  credit.  Edwards'  amendment  was  de- 
feated, although  seven  senators  from  public  land 
States  favored  it.  After  Johnson,  of  Louisiana, 
had  suggested  a  sort  of  graduation  in  price,  the  bill 
passed  the  Senate,  the  vote  standing  thirty-one  to 


seven.57 


In  the  House  the  same  desire  to  keep  the  bill 
free  from  minor  amendments  was  evident,  and 
after  a  general  debate  it  was  passed,  one  hundred 
and  thirty-three  to  twenty-three. 

The  act  which  James  Monroe  signed  on  April 
24,  1820,58  was  the  most  important  piece  of  land 

«  Annals,  1819-20,  444-489.  5»Ch.  51. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     141 

legislation  since  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation 
laid  down  the  principles  of  the  American  land  sys- 
tem in  1785.  It  was  a  short  act,  having  only  six 
sections,  yet  its  effects  were  far-reaching.  Its 
terms  provided  for  the  abolition  of  credit  and  the 
establishment  of  cash  sales  after  July  1,  1820,  for 
the  sale  of  eighty-acre  tracts,  and  for  the  reduction 
of  the  minimum  price  to  one  dollar  and  twenty-five 
cents  an  acre. 

This  act  freed  the  future  purchaser  from  the 
evils  of  the  credit  system.  A  payment  of  one  hun- 
dred dollars  made  him  the  possessor  of  a  tract  of 
eighty  acres.  Under  the  old  system  he  would  have 
been  tempted  to  pay  eighty  dollars  as  the  first 
quarterly  payment  on  a  quarter-section  tract,  now 
no  inducement  was  offered  him  to  discount  the  fu- 
ture, to  buy  more  land  than  he  could  later  pay  for, 
and  the  speculator  found  his  dreams  curtailed  as 
well. 

The  establishment  of  cash  sales  and  a  low  mini- 
mum was  but  a  return  to  the  system  of  the  Ordi- 
nance of  1785.  But  the  latter  act  had  offered  sec- 
tions as  the  smallest  available  tracts.  If  the  land 
system  had  developed  toward  a  reduction  in  the 
size  of  the  tracts  and  toward  concessions  in  favor 
of  the  actual  settler,  a  great  amount  of  bad  busi- 
ness and  cheap  politics  might  have  been  saved. 
But,  instead,  the  desire  for  a  land  revenue  caused 
the  price  to  be  increased  and  then  the  credit  system 
to  be  developed  in  order  to  facilitate  the  sales.  The 
result  was  that  on  January  1,  1820,  the  total  land 


142  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

sales  were  estimated  at  $44,563,254,  and  of  this 
sum  $21,799,562  were  due  from  the  purchasers.59 
Sixteen  years  before,  when  the  debt  was  only  a  lit- 
tle over  a  million  dollars,  Gallatin  had  pointed  out 
the  dangers  and  urged  the  abolition  of  the  credit 
system,  and  year  after  year  similar  warnings  had 
been  voiced,  notably  those  of  Morrow,  who  retired 
from  the  Senate  the  year  before  the  system  was 
finally  abolished.  While  Congress  hesitated  the 
debt  grew,  and  the  system  lent  itself  to  the  mad 
speculations  of  the  wild-cat  banking  days.  Now 
that  future  sales  were  to  be  for  cash  only,  the  next 
duty  of  Congress  was  to  extricate  the  debtors  who 
still  struggled  under  their  increasing  burdens. 

"Fin.  III.,  561. 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   THE    CREDIT   SYSTEM     143 


~     ill 

O             OS1" 

2        «  «  w   to 
0       2  x  5   S 

J3     -     s  1  "  S> 

T3       £    .•    to  Is    o    j> 

f 
1 

w 

f> 

O 

a 

're 

CD 

53 

ft 

1 

ft 

+J 

1 

4)    ,^I*    *"     fe    iH      Cj 

1     1  §f  *°£ 

1 

g 

J= 

£ 

4) 

P5        £     to     S   "-1   'S 

•a  I*  5  "-s 

09 

S 

CO 

CO 

to*    co     co     co 

-(--' 
C 
4) 

0 

8-. 

Q 
0 

*—  I 

S 

•g       .2  J3  ^  .H 

O 

S 

o 
•* 

CO 

§ 

CO 

CJ     V     cj     O 
ctf     cS     cS     ccJ 

O    O    O    O 

9  «  S  3 

CO     CO     CO     CO 

settlem 

P 
I 

IH 

0 

're 
C3 

H 

PH 

co 

a 

rj- 

rf 

HE  CREDIT 

W   r»    M'          co 

co     0     0    S    So           i-i 
y    **      "^    CD    rH             CD 

M    ^      rH    _                _    _ 

*j      4)          •»•."<«« 

1  1  1  •:  1  S  'J 

l-s  SM^s 

P"H      U      O    I-S    ^    CO    1-9 

1—  ( 
CD 

i—  i 

ft 

CO 
rH 
00 
rH 

ft 

o> 

s 

I-H 

rH 
4> 

t-s 

O     oj     O         • 

jjai.i 

0?    *~*     **     r-T 
Jj    CO    CO    w 

^        • 
r**    Cj       CS       CS 

©*    s    s    s 

regarding  act 

Q 

'C 

OJ 

"S 

V 
«0 

9 

T3 

nnual  paymen 

H 

a 

_o 

CS 

P 

|M 

0 

^3 

^—  i 

pH 

3 

i—  i 
Q 

0 

o 

S 

1 

g 

4) 

;-. 

| 

p^ 

• 

^« 

43 

CJ 

H 

d    rH             M 

rH 

.. 

£ 

•S            «  So       « 

—  ' 

'O 

CO 

CD 

4-J 

^3 

h 

H 

£      4)      <°     •"•     rH              '"' 

I-H 

CO 

rH 
00 

CD 

R 

0 

* 

e 

P    rrt      ®     rn"   rH              >-? 

I—  I 

rH 

rH 

CD 
rH 

S 

o 

S 

^                        ||               ft 

ft 

»4 

ft 

1 

3 

co1 
o 

-M 

i 

o 
oo 

o     ^ 

CD    rH 


eft  o  I-H 

O     rH 

oo  oo     . 


<»     , 

rH     oo 


(S-2 
d 


^^  »^  ^*         ^-r«  rM  ^ 

ft  ft  ft^  ft>-5 


2   ft 


G^G<G<CO^IW5  CO  COdO       ^ 

CDODOOCDOOCD  00  ODODOO       *rH 


CHAPTER   VI 

CONGRESS    AND    THE   LAND    DEBTORS 

The  land  act  of  1820  was,  considering  the  period 
and  the  circumstances,  a  commendable  piece  of 
land  legislation.  Negatively  it  might  be  criticised, 
because  it  failed  to  grant  preemption  or  donations 
to  actual  settlers,  but  at  that  time  the  United 
States  could  not  afford  to  engage  in  such  philan- 
thropic ventures.  Other  poorer  powers  had  given 
away  land  with  lavish  hand,  but  no  nation  had  ever 
granted  it  under  an  expensive  system  of  accurate 
surveys  such  as  that'  in  operation  in  the  United 
States.  The  liberal  colonial  grants  of  Britain, 
France  and  Spain  were  the  occasion  for  countless 
lawsuits,  and  with  such  accompanying  evils  the 
United  States  could  have  given  away  its  land.  In 
1820,  however,  the  public  lands  were  expected  to 
bring  some  revenue  into  the  treasury,  but  if  they 
were  given  away  the  great  costs  of  the  surveys 
would  be  a  drain  upon  the  treasury  instead.  So, 
in  spite  of  frequent  demands  for  general  preemp- 
tion and  donations,  Congress  was  still  unready  to 
grant  them. 

From  a  positive  point  of  view  the  act  has  been 
criticised  because  it  retained  the  great  incentive  to 
speculation,  the  auction  system.  If  lands  were  to 

144 


CONGRESS  AND  THE  LAND  DEBTORS  145 

be  sold  at  all,  there  were  three  methods  available — 
the  auction  system,  sale  at  a  fixed  price,  and  sale 
at  a  price  to  be  determined  by  local  officers  ac- 
quainted with  the  tracts  offered.  Theoretically 
the  latter  system  should  have  been  employed,  but 
the  expense  of  classification  and  the  opportunity 
for  fraud  which  was  present  caused  it  to  be  almost 
entirely  ignored.  A  fixed  price  would  have  cre- 
ated even  more  opposition  than  the  auction  system, 
for  it  would  have  offered  rich  new  land  on  the 
same  terms  as  land  which  had  been  rejected  for  a 
score  of  years.  Under  the  auction  system  the  gov- 
ernment received  more  nearly  the  value  of  new 
land,  while  old  land  was  sold  at  the  minimum  price, 
and  the  minimum  price  came  pretty  close  to  being 
a  fixed  price,  for  the  average  price  received  seldom 
reached  a  higher  figure.  It  was  possible  for  men 
with  ready  money,  under  this  system,  to  secure  the 
desirable  tracts,  but  as  Senator  Morrow  reported 
in  1819,  "  The  idea  of  providing  equal  facility  to 
the  poor  and  to- the  rich  by  any  regulation  is  in- 
compatible with  that  of  disposing  of  the  land  for  a 
valuable  consideration."  1  So,  if  the  land  were  to 
be  sold  at  all,  the  auction  system  was  apparently 
the  best  way  to  dispose  of  it. 

But  if  the  Act  of  1820  provided  a  better  way  for 
disposing  of  the  public  domain  in  the  future,  it  did 
not  afford  relief  to  the  purchasers  under  the  old 
system.  Attempts  had  been  made  to  add  relief 
provisions  to  the  bill,  but  they  were  defeated  in 

i  P.  L.  III.,  414. 


146  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

order  not  to  confuse  the  bill  with  details.  Before 
the  general  land  act  had  passed,  a  relief  bill  had 
been  carried  suspending  forfeitures  until  March 
31,  1821,  and  with  that  very  slight  relief,  for  it 
affected  but  a  small  body  of  sufferers,  Congress 
put  off  the  evil  day  until  the  next  session. 

At  the  close  of  1820  the  amount  due  the  United 
States  from  land  debtors  amounted  to  more  than 
$21,000,000,  more  than  one-fifth  of  the  national 
debt.  Much  of  this  money  was  due  from  persons 
of  doubtful  financial  standing,  while  the  problem 
was  complicated  by  demands  for  equitable  relief. 

Congress  had  the  difficult  task  before  it  of  so 
legislating  as  to  secure  the  largest  amount  of 
money  with  the  smallest  amount  of  forfeitures,  for 
only  in  this  way  could  the  demands  of  the  treasury 
and  of  the  debtors  be  reconciled.  And  this  was  no 
ordinary  financial  transaction.  Congress  itself 
could  well  accept  some  of  the  responsibility  for  the 
largeness  of  this  debt  and  for  the  distress  it  was 
causing.  Congress  had  extended  the  credit  period 
to  five  years,  and,  in  spite  of  frequent  protests,  had 
refused  to  correct  the  error.  Congress  had  en- 
dorsed the  policy  which  caused  commercial  restric- 
tions and  finally  war  itself.  Congress  had  per- 
mitted the  Bank  of  the  United  States  to  go  out  of 
existence  and  the  period  of  mushroom  banks  had 
followed.  The  effects  upon  the  credit  system  of 
all  these  actions  have  already  been  pointed  out. 
There  was  a  political  issue  raised  as  well.  These 
acts  had  been  passed  by  Democratic  Congresses 


CONGRESS  AND  ?HE  LAND  DEBTORS  147 

and  their  effects  had  been  greatest  in  regions  where 
Democracy  was  strongest.  Well  might  a  Ken- 
tucky Senator  say,  "  The  government  is  bound  in 
justice  to  grant  the  relief;  and  these  citizens  have 
a  moral  right  to  demand  it." 

When  Congress  assembled  in  November,  1820, 
its  disposition  was  well  described  by  Senator  Ed- 
wards, of  Illinois,  "  All  agree  that  relief  is  neces- 
sary." But  the  best  method  of  relief  was  a  per- 
plexing question.  Johnson,  of  Kentucky,  pre- 
sented to  the  Senate  the  first  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject.2 This  would  have  enabled  a  purchaser  to 
retain  as  much  land  as  his  payments  covered  at  the 
price  contracted  for  and  to  relinquish  the  remain- 
der. The  desirability  of  some  form  of  relinquish- 
ment  was  generally  accepted  throughout  the  West, 
and  within  the  next  three  months  some  thirty-five 
petitions  came  up  to  the  Senate  favoring  the  appli- 
cation of  previous  payments  at  the  rate  of  two  dol- 
lars an  acre  and  the  relinquishment  of  the  balance. 
The  legislatures  of  Missouri  and  Kentucky  passed 
resolutions  favoring  relinquishment.  These  pro- 
posals would  have  wiped  out  the  debt  at  once,  leav- 
ing the  debtors  in  possession  of  as  much  land  as 
their  actual  payments  would  cover.  But  the  great 
speculations  had  been  those  of  1818  and  1819,  and 
on  these  lands  only  one-fourth  of  the  price  had  gen- 
erally been  paid.  Johnson's  resolution  would  have 
caused  these  purchasers  to  lose  three-fourths  of 
their  holdings. 

a  Annals,  1820-21,  p.  17. 


U8  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

Another  plan s  was  that  of  Walker,  of  Alabama, 
which  combined  extension  of  credit  to  those  who 
chose  to  retain  all  their  lands ;  relinquishment  of  all 
land,  resale  by  the  government  and  a  return  to  the 
original  purchaser  of  the  amount  received  above 
one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  an  acre,  but  never 
more  than  the  purchaser  had  already  paid  the  gov- 
ernment ;  a  discount  of  three-eighths  of  the  original 
price,  including  interest,  for  prompt  payments;  or 
a  relinquishment  of  part  of  the  land  and  comple- 
tion of  payments  on  the  balance.  Noble,  of  Indi- 
ana, suggested  that  patents  be  issued  to  purchasers 
who  had  made  three  payments  on  their  land,4  while 
Ruggles,  of  Ohio,  suggested  a  remission  of  inter- 
est and  an  extension  of  credit.5 

The  bill,  which  was  reported  to  the  Senate  on 
December  28,  by  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands, 
was  decidedly  favorable  to  the  debtors.6  In  brief, 
it  provided  for  relinquishment,  a  discount  for 
prompt  payment  of  balances,  an  extension  of  credit 
on  balances  due,  and  a  remission  of  accrued  inter- 
est. The  amendments  of  Senate  and  House  simply 
made  these  provisions  more  definite. 

Two  valuable  speeches  were  made  during  the  de- 
bate in  the  Senate.  Thomas  and  Edwards,  Sena- 
tors from  Illinois,  dwelt  upon  the  economic  and 
financial  history  of  the  past  twenty  years.  Both 
pointed  out  the  effect  of  reducing  the  minimum 
price  of  lands.  Thomas  showed  how  it  would  be 

»  Annals,  1820-21,  p.  19.  »  p.  28. 

*  Annals,  1820-21,  p.  22.  «  P.  133. 


CONGRESS  AND  THE  LAND  DEBTORS  149 

wiser  for  any  purchaser  who  had  paid  but  one  in- 
stallment to  relinquish  the  whole  tract  and  buy  it 
in  at  the  new  minimum,  saving  at  least  twenty-five 
cents  an  acre  thereby.  Edwards  maintained  that 
the  government  had  violated  its  contract  with  the 
old  purchasers  when  it  reduced  the  price,  for,  under 
the  former  system,  a  delinquent  purchaser  might 
forfeit  his  lands  and,  on  the  resale,  receive  the  sur- 
plus over  the  amount  due  the  government.  But 
with  the  new  minimum  there  would  be  no  surplus. 
He  failed  to  mention  that  the  purchasers  were  beg- 
ging off  from  their  contract  with  the  government. 
But  whether  based  on  the  depreciation  of  the  land 
or  on  the  appreciation  of  money,  he  believed  the 
discount  for  cash  payments  of  balances  due  should 
be  at  least  thirty-seven  and  a  half  per  cent.7  And 
he  voiced  the  general  sentiment  of  Congress  when 
he  said  "  narrow  considerations  of  interest,  nice 
calculations  of  pecuniary  profit,  when  the  great 
question  is  one  of  legislative  grace  and  relief,  to  a 
considerable  and  suffering  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity, seem  to  me  to  be  out  of  place  on  this  floor." 
Of  the  unsuccessful  amendments  which  were  of- 
fered during  the  debate,  those  of  Eaton,  of  Ten- 
nessee, were  perhaps  the  most  suggestive.  He 
first  endeavored  to  have  the  relief  extend  solely  to 
actual  settlers — which  caused  Walker  to  ask  why 
the  government  should  legislate  against  the  spec- 
ulator after  the  sale  when  it  encouraged  him  before 

*  Based  on  the  decrease  in  the  minimum  price  from  $2.00  td  $1.25 


an  acre. 


15»  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

it — and  when  this  was  defeated  he  tried  to  secure 
special  concessions  to  settlers.  But  he  obtained  lit- 
tle support  from  the  Senate.  Walker  tried  to  have 
the  discount  apply  to  the  whole  purchase  price  in- 
stead of  only  to  the  amount  due,  but  he  could  not 
carry  his  amendment.  After  other  minor  changes 
the  bill  was  carried,  thirty-six  to  five  being  in  favor 
of  engrossing. 

As  might  be  expected,  the  House  contained 
members  who  were  ready  to  discriminate  against 
the  evil  speculators.  Allen,  of  Tennessee,  foretold 
the  time  when  persons  who  had  completed  their 
payments  would  petition  Congress  for  a  remission 
of  such  sums  as  would  place  them  on  an  equality 
with  those  now  about  to  be  favored.  "  I  know  of 
no  class  of  men  who  have  less  claim  upon  the  pa- 
ternal indulgence  or  gracious  favor  of  the  govern- 
ment than  most  of  the  purchasers  of  public  land — 
I  mean  that  portion  most  clamorous  for  relief  and 
the  most  to  be  benefited  by  this  bill."  He  did  not 
believe  that  much  land  bought  for  actual  cultiva- 
tion would  be  relinquished,  but  the  speculator,  who 
bought  some  poor  man's  improvement  over  his 
head,  would  now  release  the  adjoining  tract  and 
keep  the  improvement.  And  in  another  speech 
Allen  asked  the  House  to  imagine  a  farmer  who 
had  been  living  on  a  plantation  for  three  or  four 
years  without  rent,  unable  to  pay  the  eighty  dollars 
a  year  necessary  to  complete  title  to  a  quarter-sec- 
tion tract.  Under  the  present  bill  he  would  have  the 
liberty  of  paying  thirty  dollars  a  year  for  eight 


CONGRESS  AND  THE  LAND  DEBTORS  151 

years  without  interest,  which  was  not  half  the  rent 
of  a  home  in  any  country,  and  if  he  defaulted  he 
would  have  had  eight  years'  free  rent.  But  the 
members  of  the  House  had  no  difficulty  in  recol- 
lecting many  worthy  individuals  who  had  been  un- 
able to  secure  as  much  as  eighty  dollars  a  year  from 
their  partly  tamed  lands. 

With  various  minor  amendments  the  bill  passed, 
ninety-seven  to  forty. 

This  act 8  became  the  model  for  the  relief  acts  of 
the  next  ten  years.  In  the  first  place  it  permitted 
the  relinquishment  of  land  not  paid  for  and  the 
application  of  the  total  payment  to  the  purchase 
of  the  tract  retained.  But  these  tracts  must  be 
bounded  by  legal  lines,  eighty  acres  being  the  mini- 
mum in  every  case,  and  those  who  had  purchased 
at  any  time  two  or  more  quarter  sections  could  not 
relinquish  less  than  one-quarter  section.  In  no 
case  would  the  government  repay  any  money.  Sec- 
ondly, all  interest  on  land  debts  accruing  up  to 
September  30  was  remitted.  Thirdly,  the  debtors 
were  divided  into  classes,  based  upon  the  propor- 
tion of  the  original  price  which  they  had  paid,  and 
those  who  had  paid  one-quarter  were  allowed  to 
meet  the  balance  in  eight  annual  payments;  those 
who  had  paid  one-half,  in  six;  and  those  who  had 
paid  three-quarters,  in  four.  These  instalments 
bore  six  per  cent,  interest,  which  would  be  remitted 
if  they  were  promptly  paid.  Fourthly,  in  order  to 
encourage  prompt  payments  a  discount  of  thirty- 

s  Mar.  2,  1821,  ch.  12. 


152  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

seven  and  a  half  per  cent,  was  allowed  on  the  pay- 
ment of  the  balance  due  before  September  30,  1822, 
but  this  did  not  apply  to  the  transfers  under  sec- 
tion one.  Among  other  provisions  was  one  relat- 
ing to  exploiters  of  town  sites,  another  announced 
a  forfeiture  if  the  total  debt  was  not  paid  within 
three  months  of  the  day  fixed  for  final  payment, 
while  others  required  that  a  written  acceptance  of 
the  terms  of  this  act  must  be  filed  before  September 
30,  and  in  the  meanwhile  no  land  was  to  be  for- 
feited and  no  relinquished  land  was  to  be  sold 
until  two  years  after  surrender. 

Such  was  the  act  which  Congress  hoped  would 
clear  up  the  vast  land  debt  due  the  government. 
Thomas  believed  that  such  a  bill  would  at  once  re- 
duce the  debt  some  four  million  dollars  through 
relinquishments  and  three  millions  through  the 
payments  induced  by  the  discount,  while  the  bal- 
ance would  provide  a  desirable  annual  revenue. 
The  act  was  certainly  liberal  enough,  and  the 
strong  vote  it  secured  in  each  House  showed  how 
ready  the  whole  country  was  to  afford  relief. 

The  immediate  results  of  this  first  relief  act  were 
even  greater  than  its  friends  had  anticipated.  By 
September  30,  1821,  the  debt  had  been  reduced  to 
$11,957,430,  nearly  fifty  per  cent.  But  Congress 
was  not  surprised  to  learn  that  further  legislation 
was  necessary.  The  Act  of  1821  fixed  September 
30th  as  the  date  for  accepting  its  provisions.  In 
view  of  the  transportation  facilities  of  the  time  it 
was  absurd  to  believe  that  this  news  could  reach 


CONGRESS  AND  THE  LAND  DEBTORS  153 

and  be  understood  by  all  the  delinquent  purchasers. 
So  a  supplementary  act  was1  passed  on  April  20, 
1822,  extending  the  time  of  acceptance  until  Sep- 
tember 30th  of  that  year,  and  the  time  of  forfeiture 
as  well.  A  similar  extension  was  granted  by  the 
Act  of  March  3,  1823,  although  the  applicants 
were  required  to  produce  evidence  that  their  failure 
to  act  more  promptly  was  due  to  causes  beyond 
their  control.  These  extensions,  of  course,  did  not 
increase  the  period  of  liquidation,  they  merely  ex- 
tended the  time  in  which  the  benefits  of  the  Act  of 
1821  might  be  accepted.  It  was  at  this  session 
that  the  Legislature  of  Alabama  sent  up  a  memor- 
ial praying  that  persons  who  had  paid  for  their 
lands  before  the  relief  laws  were  passed  might  have 
a  discount  of  thirty-seven  and  a  half  per  cent.9 

After  the  first  great  reduction  in  the  debt  the 
annual  decrease  was  small.  Congress  learned  that 
further  credit  had  been  taken  on  some  3,588,558 
acres  upon  which  there  was  a  balance  of  $6,740,358 
due  to  the  government.10  This  simply  meant  that 
the  time  for  forfeitures  would  soon  be  at  hand. 
Quite  contrary  to  its  custom,  Congress  proceeded 
to  anticipate  the  day  of  reckoning  and  its  act  of 
1824  gave  a  new  stimulus  to  the  reduction  of  the 
debt. 

The  benefits  of  this  act  n  were  only  extended  to 
persons  who  had  taken  a  certificate  of  further 

o  Annals,  1822-23,  793.  10  P.  L.  Ill,  630. 

"  May  18,  1824,  ch.  88.     Further  explained  by  act  of  May  26, 
1824,  ch.  176. 


154  THE    NATIONAL   LAND   SYSTEM 

credit  under  one  of  the  former  relief  acts.  Such 
persons  were  permitted  to  relinquish  part  of  their 
land  and  credit  all  payments  to  the  tract  retained, 
but  this  time  the  amount  relinquished  must  either 
completely  pay  for  the  part  retained  or  the  balance 
must  be  paid  in  cash,  with  the  customary  discount 
of  thirty-seven  and  a  half  per  cent.  Also,  if  they 
would  make  complete  payment  before  April  10, 
1825,  the  customary  discount  would  be  allowed. 

Under  this  act  the  debt  was  reduced  $3,906,578, 
amounting  to  $6,322,675  on  June  30th,  1825.12 
Complete  payment  was  made  for  932,068  acres, 
by  relinquishing  1,140,749  acres  and  paying  in  cash 
$369,589,  less  the  discount  of  $222,124.  The  terms 
of  this  act  were  continued  until  July  4,  1827,  by 
an  act  of  1826,13  and  in  addition  any  person  mak- 
ing complete  payment  before  that  day  would  secure 
a  remission  of  all  accrued  interest  as  well  as  the 
discount  on  the  principal.  This  act,  moreover,  per- 
mitted a  person  holding  a  certificate  of  further 
credit  to  reenter  any  of  his  lands  which  might  have 
reverted  for  nonpayment  since  July  1,  1820,  and  to 
redeem  them  by  paying  the  balance  due,  without 
any  interest,  and  with  a  discount  of  thirty-seven 
and  a  half  per  cent.  Again,  in  1828,14  the  preced- 
ing acts  were  continued  until  July  4,  1829,  and  the 
right  of  reentry  was  granted  to  persons  who  did 
not  take  out  a  certificate  of  further  credit  and 
whose  lands  might  have  been  forfeited  since  1820. 

w  P.  L.  IV.,  794.  «  May  4,  ch.  34. 

i*  Mar.  21,  1828,  ch.  22. 


CONGRESS  AND  THE  LAND  DEBTORS  155 

But  in  spite  of  these  relief  measures  the  forfeit- 
ures continued.  With  the  great  increase  in  the 
wealth  of  the  nation  Congress  began  to  look  upon 
the  public  lands  less  as  a  source  of  revenue  and 
more  as  a  great  field  for  settlement.  And  when,  in 
1828,  statistics  15  could  be  brought  to  its  attention 
showing  that  since  1800  the  nation  had  taken  in 
forfeitures  the  sum  of  $560,000  for  which  the  pur- 
chasers received  nothing  at  all,  and,  moreover,  fre- 
quently lost  their  improvements  as  well,  Congress 
granted  an  unexpected  relief.  It  simply  provided 
that  certificates,  receivable  for  public  lands  in  the 
same  state  or  territory,  should  be  issued  for  all 
sums  forfeited  since  1787,  except  in  the  case  of 
those  who  took  a  further  credit  in  1821. 16  And  in 
the  case  of  the  latter  a  similar  relief  was  granted  in 
1832.17 

After  affording  this  exceptional  relief  Congress 
had  to  extend  its  benefits  to  other  sufferers.  The 
Act  of  1830 18  applied  to  the  reverted  lands  of  per- 
sons who  had  taken  further  credit.  Such  persons 
might  preempt  the  forfeited  land  before  July  4, 
1831,  on  payment  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five 
cents  an  acre  in  addition  to  the  amount  already  for- 
feited, the  total  payment  not  to  exceed  three  dol- 
lars and  fifty  cents  an  acre;  or  draw  scrip  within 
nine  months  for  money  paid  on  lands  purchased  at 
not  more  than  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents  an  acre, 
such  scrip  not  to  be  good  for  lands  bought  after 

is  P.  L.  V.,  12.  «  July  9,  1832,  cK.  181. 

18  May  23,  1828,  ch,  71.  ig  March  31,  1830,  ch.  48. 


156  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

this  date  at  public  sale;  or  pay  the  balance  due  in 
cash,  subject  to  thirty-seven  and  a  half  per  cent, 
discount.  Provision  was  made  for  preempting 
relinquished  land  which  the  person  might  still 
occupy,19  and  a  stand  was  taken  against  prevalent 
frauds 20  in  the  resale  of  relinquished  lands  by  pro- 
viding a  fine  and  imprisonment  for  attempts  to 
hinder  a  person  bidding  at  a  public  sale,  and  by 
rendering  void  all  contracts  to  pay  a  premium,  to 
the  successful  bidder,  over  the  purchase  price. 

The  next  year  further  relief  was  afforded  in  the 
case  of  lands  which  sold  at  fourteen  dollars  an  acre 
or  less  on  which  a  further  credit  had  not  been  taken, 
for  such  lands  patents  would  pass  if  one  dollar  and 
a  quarter  per  acre  was  paid  before  July  4,  1831.21 
This  act  also  amended  the  terms  on  which 
occupants  of  relinquished  lands  might  secure  pre- 
emption. If  the  land  had  sold  at  five  dollars  an 
acre  or  less  it  might  be  preempted  for  one  dollar 
and  twenty-five  cents  an  acre,  while  if  it  sold  for 
between  five  and  fourteen  dollars  the  preemption 
would  amount  to  one-fourth  of  the  purchase  price 
per  acre.  Finally,  in  1832,  the  last  relief  act  was 
passed.22  This  was  in  the  nature  of  an  amendment 
to  the  Acts  of  1824  and  1828.  In  the  former  case 

i»  Preemption  at  $1.25  per  acre,  plus  62 £  per  cent,  of  the  amount 
formerly  paid  for  the  land  and  applied  to  complete  the  purchase 
of  land  retained.  Total  price  not  to  exceed  $3.50  an  acre. 

e»For  frauds  see  P.  L.  IV.,  766. 

21  Feb.  25,  1831,  ch.  34.  This  act  was  designed  to  relieve  pur- 
chasers in  good  faith,  and  not  the  speculators  of  1818-9,  who  had 
bid  high  for  lands.  22  July  9,  1832,  ch.  181. 


CONGRESS  AND  THE  LAND  DEBTORS  157 

it  provided  that  when  land  had  been  relinquished 
and  the  payments  transferred  exceeded  the  pay- 
ment due  on  the  lands  retained  then  land  scrip  was 
to  issue  for  any  excess  over  ten  dollars.  And  in  the 
latter  case,  it  authorized  the  issue  of  land-scrip  for 
any  sums  forfeited  on  lands  on  which  a  further 
credit  had  been  taken.  After  1832  only  the  peti- 
tions of  Alabama,  that  certificates  be  issued  to 
those  who  purchased  lands  there  at  exorbitant 
prices  in  1818-1819,  served  to  remind  Congress  of 
the  days  of  the  credit  system.23 

A  study  of  the  operation  of  the  relief  laws  can 
now  be  profitably  undertaken.  At  the  close  of 
1820  the  amount  due  from  purchasers  stood  at 
$21,213,350.24  Of  this  amount  more  than  half  was 
due  in  Alabama  alone,  $11,206,447,  while  the  debt 
in  Ohio,  Missouri,  and  Indiana  ranged  from  two 
and  a  quarter  to  two  and  a  half  millions.  It  was 
in  Alabama,  of  course,  that  the  land  speculation, 
under  the  credit  system,  had  reached  its  height. 
The  desire  for  new  cotton  lands  and  the  abundant 
paper  money  uniting  to  eliminate  all  caution.  At 
the  Huntsville  land  office  in  1818  and  1819  wild 
lands  sold  at  auction  for  thirty  dollars  an  acre, 
and  higher  prices  were  occasionally  bid.25  Alabama, 
therefore,  derived  the  most  benefit  from  the  relief 
measures. 

Of  the  four  and  a  half  million  acres  relinquished 

23  1833:   P.  L.  VI.,  635.     1835:  P.  P.  VII.,  655. 
04  P.  L.  IV.,  795.     Figures  vary  in  documents. 
25  P.  L.  III.,  555. 


158  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

under  these  acts,  three-fourths  were  given  up  in 
Alabama.  The  relinquishments  in  Missouri  and 
Illinois  were  proportionately  very  large,  for  there 
also  the  speculation  had  been  excessive.  In  Ohio, 
where  better  financial  conditions  prevailed  less  than 
half  the  outstanding  debt  was  met  in  that  way.  In 
Alabama  the  relinquished  land  had  been  bought  at 
about  five  dollars  an  acre,  in  Missouri  and  Ohio  at 
about  three  dollars,  and  in  the  other  states  at  a 
little  over  two  dollars. 

The  people  of  Ohio  preferred  to  take  advantage 
of  the  discount  provisions  of  the  first  relief  acts 
and  in  this  way  retained  their  land  at  prices  nearly 
equal  to  the  new  one  dollar  and  a  quarter  minimum. 
This  would  indicate  that,  in  general,  the  land  was 
desirable  and  had  been  purchased  at  a  reasonable 
price  in  the  first  instance,  and  also  that  there  was 
some  ready  money  available  to  take  advantage  of 
the  cash  discount.  But  the  Acts  of  1830  and  1831, 
allowing  purchasers  who  had  taken  further  credit 
and  who  had  been  unable  to  hold  their  lands,  to 
preempt  the  forfeited  tracts  at  from  one  dollar  and 
a  quarter  to  three  dollars  and  a  half  an  acre  and 
granting  a  similar  preemption  to  persons  who  still 
occupied  relinquished  lands,  proved  of  greatest 
service  in  Alabama.  There  the  planters  in  many 
instances  had  relinquished  the  least  profitable  of 
their  lands  and  tried  to  hold,  on  the  new  credit,  gen- 
erally for  eight  years,  the  choicest  parts  of  their 
plantations.26  These  lands  had  been  bought  at 

26  p.  L.  III.,  630. 


CONGRESS  AND  THE  LAND  DEBTORS  159 

prices  rising  to  thirty  dollars  and  over  an  acre. 
Even  eight  years  was  not  long  enough  for  them 
to  break  in  their  new  lands  and  meet  such  unrea- 
sonable prices.  The  lands  began  to  revert  in  1829 
and  under  the  Acts  of  1830  and  1831  these  lands 
could  be  preempted  at  not  over  three  dollars  and 
fifty  cents  an  acre,  including  former  payments,  or 
at  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  an  acre  if 
originally  purchased  at  fourteen  dollars  or  less. 
In  this  way  a  considerable  quantity  of  high  priced 
lands  in  Alabama  passed  into  private  hands  at  only 
nominal  figures.  The  more  conservative  planters, 
who  had  relinquished  their  good  lands  in  order  to 
settle  their  entire  indebtedness,  must  have  felt 
rather  exasperated  at  the  success  of  the  optimists 
who  held  on  to  as  much  as  they  could  in  the  fer- 
vent hope  that  Congress  eventually  would  relieve 
their  "  distress." 

In  view  of  these  facts  some  general  observations 
may  be  offered.  The  relief  legislation,  in  its 
hesitating  ineffectiveness  was  quite  in  keeping  with 
the  conduct  of  Congress  in  handling  land  questions. 
The  persons  who  owed  the  government  some  $21,- 
000,000  in  1820  deserved  some  measure  of  relief, 
that  has  been  pointed  out,  and  under  the  law  the 
speculator  was  as  much  entitled  to  it  as  was  the 
actual  settler.  A  forfeiture  worked  a  real  hard- 
ship, because  the  unfortunate  one  lost  not  only  his 
money  and  his  land  but  his  improvements  as  well. 
So  long  as  the  Congressmen  were  chosen  by  the 
people  they  could  hardly  be  blamed  for  not  insist- 


160  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

ing  upon  such  penalties.  But  Congress  could  have 
taken  a  middle  ground  between  the  exaction  of  for- 
feitures and  the  generous  relief  extended  by  the 
Act  of  1821.  It  was  evident  to  all  that  the  exist- 
ence of  so  large  a  debt  was  undesirable.  Congress 
felt  itself  called  upon  to  provide  for  the  reduction 
of  this  debt  in  some  equitable  way.  But  instead 
of  providing  for  its  immediate  liquidation  it 
allowed  further  credit  on  one-third  of  the  amount. 
It  certainly  seems  as  if  the  best  act  possible  in  1821 
would  have  been  based  upon  Senator  Johnson's  res- 
olution, permitting  the  relinquishment  of  enough 
land  to  complete  the  payment  of  the  balance,  while 
the  discount  of  thirty-seven  and  a  half  per  cent, 
for  payment  in  full  should  have  been  allowed.  This 
would  have  rendered  unnecessary  further  relief 
acts  of  every  description.  Such  an  act  was  passed 
in  1824,  but  it  did  not  prevent  further  legislation, 
for  Congress  was  not  willing  to  insist  upon  for- 
feitures or  to  profit  through  the  resale  of  relin- 
quished land.  If,  therefore,  it  was  quite  possible 
to  afford  relief  in  a  business  like  way,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  a  number  of  motives  caused  the 
enactment  of  the  first  relief  act.27  The  general 
feeling  that  good  times  were  sure  to  come,  the  en- 
thusiasm of  the  western  Congressmen  who  believed 
that  their  constituents  would  soon  be  able  to  shake 
off  their  burdens,  the  general  readiness  to  help  a 
man  get  up  on  his  feet  after  a  financial  crisis,  all 

27  The  emphasis   changes   from   the  idea   of  revenue   to   the   en- 
couragement of  settlement.     First  general  preemption  act,  1830. 


CONGRESS  AND  THE  LAND  DEBTORS  161 

appealed  to  individual  Congressmen.  Then  should 
be  noted  the  change  in  the  attitude  of  Congress 
toward  the  public  lands  and  the  growth  of  political 
influence  in  the  public  land  states.  With  these 
suggestions  in  mind  it  is  easy  to  understand  the 
terms  of  the  acts  which  finally  rid  the  West  of  the 
evils  of  the  credit  system. 

ACTS  FOR  THE  EXTINGUISHMENT  OF  THE  DEBT  DUE 

IN  1820. 

Mar.  2,  1821.  Relinquishment,  discount,  further  credit.  Expired 
Sept.  30,  1821. 

Apr.  20,  1822.    Extends  act  of  1821  to  Sept.  30,  1822. 

Mar.  3,  1823.  Extends  act  of  1821  to  Sept.  30,  1823,  for  cause 
only. 

May  18,  1824.     Relinquishment.      Discount    for    complete    payment. 

May  26,  1824.    Explanatory  of  act  of  1824. 

May  4,  1826.  Extends  acts  of  1824  to  July  4,  1827.  Permits  re- 
entry of  forfeited  lands,  on  which  further  credit 
was  taken,  on  payment  of  amount  due  less  dis- 
count; remission  of  interest  and  grant  of  discount 
on  all  lands  completely  paid  for. 

Mar.  21,  1828.  Extends  acts  of  1824  and  1826  to  July  4,  1829. 
Extends  re-entry  to  lands  on  which  further  credit 
was  not  taken  and  which  were  forfeited  since 
July  1,  1820,  and  remain  unsold. 

May  23,  1828.  Certificates  to  issue  for  all  moneys  forfeited  on 
lands  for  which  a  further  credit  was  not  taken. 
1787-1825. 

Mar.  31,  1830.  Redemption  of  reverted  land  on  which  a  further 
credit  had  been  taken:  preemption  or  issue  of 
scrip.  Preemption  to  holders  of  relinquished 
lands. 

Feb.  25,  1831.  Reduction  in  charges  of  preemption  of  reverted 
and  relinquished  lands. 

July  9,  1832.  Certificates  to  issue  for  moneys  forfeited  on  lands 
on  which  a  further  credit  had  been  taken.  Cer- 
tificates to  issue  for  all  sums  over  $10.00  due  to 
purchasers  when  land  was  relinquished  to  com- 
plete payment  on  land  retained. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   EXTENSION    OF   THE   LAND   SYSTEM 

In  the  previous  chapters  the  development  of 
general  land  legislation  has  been  considered  and 
frequent  references  have  been  made  to  the  exten- 
sion of  the  land  system  over  the  great  public 
domain.  It  now  seems  desirable  to  point  out  more 
carefully  the  gradual  advance  of  the  surveys  and 
sales  until  they  became  almost  coextensive  with  the 
lands.  It  is  too  frequently  assumed  that  all  the 
public  domain  was  open  to  authorized  settlement. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  has  never  been  the  case. 
In  the  period  under  discussion,  that  is  before  1820, 
three  steps  were  necessary  before  any  of  the  pub- 
lic domain  could  be  purchased.  First,  the  Indian 
title  had  to  be  extinguished;  secondly,  the  surveys 
had  to  be  completed;  thirdly,  the  lands  had  to  be 
declared  on  sale.  A  later  development  was  to  allow 
a  preemption,  first  on  surveyed  lands  and  finally 
on  unsurveyed  lands,  but  even  then  certain  lands 
were  closed  to  preemption.  To  be  sure  settlement 
did  not  by  any  means  wait  for  the  extension  of  the 
land  system.  Where  lands  were  held  under  foreign 
titles  the  period  of  confirmation  would  delay  the 
surveys  and  regular  sales  but  would  permit  of 
speculation  and  some  increase  of  population.  And 
even  the  most  rapid  surveying  could  not  keep  up 
with  the  land-hungry  settlers  who  preferred  to 
squat  on  unsurveyed  land,  in  the  hope  of  securing 

162 


THE   EXTENSION   OF   THE   LAND   SYSTEM     163 

a  preemption,  rather  than  buy  inferior  land  at  the 
minimum  price  or  pay  a  premium  for  the  better 
land  at  the  auction  sale.  The  surveyors  had  to  run 
their  lines  over  good,  bad  and  indifferent  land. 
The  squatters  would  locate  only  on  the  best.  For 
that  reason  the  surveys  could  not,  even  if  money 
were  available,  keep  pace  with  the  settlers.  While 
the  linesmen  were  struggling  through  some  morass 
or  thicket  the  squatters  were  ringing  trees  along 
a  likely  river  bottom.  Therefore  a  map  of  the  ex- 
tension of  the  surveys  would  not  agree  with  a  map 
of  the  population  of  the  public  land  states.  For 
people  would  be  settled  on  unsurveyed  land  and 
considerable  surveyed  land  would  still  be  unsold. 

A  study  of  the  extension  of  the  system  is  con- 
cerned with  many  details.  First  of  all  come  the 
Indian  relations  which  determine  the  cessions  of 
land;  then  come  the  surveys,  depending  upon  the 
annual  appropriation  and  upon  the  pressure 
exerted  to  secure  surveys  in  different  regions ;  then 
come  the  establishment  of  the  land  offices,  the  loca- 
tion at  times  left  to  the  choice  of  the  President; 
and,  finally,  the  sales.  All  must  be  borne  in  mind. 

The  Ordinance  of  1785,  the  first  act  for  the  dis- 
posal of  the  public  lands,  applied  to  "  the  territory 
ceded  by  individual  states  to  the  United  States, 
which  has  been  purchased  of  the  Indian  inhabi- 
tans." 

At  that  time  two  treaties  were  in  existence  be- 
tweeen  the  United  States  and  the  Indians  of  the 
Northwest.  The  treaty  of  Fort  Stanwix,  October 


161  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 


INDIAN    CESSIONS 


22,  1784,  had  simply  secured  a  relinquishment  of 
the  title  of  the  Six  Nations  to  the  land  west  of  the 
Niagara  River,  but  as  this  land  was  claimed  by 
other  tribes  it  availed  little.  A  treaty  had  also 
been  negotiated  at  Fort  Mclntosh,  on  January 
21st,  1785,  with  the  Wyandot,  Delaware,  Chip- 
pewa  and  Ottawa  tribes,  which  ceded  their  title 
to  approximately  the  southeastern  half  of  Ohio.  It 
was  under  this  treaty  that  the  first  surveys  were 
undertaken,  although  the  treaty  itself  was  not  car- 
ried out  by  the  Ohio  tribes.  Although  treaties  were 
made  with  the  Shawnees  on  January  31st,  1786, 
and  with  the  Wyandots,  Delawares,  Ottawas, 
Chippewas,  Potawatomis,  and  Sauk,  at  Fort  Har- 
mar,  on  January  9th,  1789,  it  was  not  until 
Wayne's  victory,  and  the  treaty  of  Greeneville,  on 
August  3rd,  1795,  that  Indian  cessions  in  the 
Northwest  really  meant  anything.  This  treaty 
covered  two-thirds  of  the  present  state  of  Ohio, 
from  the  Pennsylvania  line  to  the  Cuyahoga  River, 
then  to  the  Tuscarawas  and  along  the  "  Indian 
Boundary  Line,"  including  the  entire  southern 
half  of  the  state,  to  the  Indiana  line,  then  south- 
west to  the  Ohio,  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Ken- 
tucky. It  was  the  land  in  this  cession  that  was  to 
be  surveyed  under  the  Acts  of  1796  and  1800. 

The  survey  of  the  first  four  ranges  in  1785-7, 
then  extended  to  seven  in  1788-9,  and  continued  to 
the  boundary  of  the  Connecticut  Reserve  in  1800-1, 
has  been  described,  as  have  the  sales  in  New  York 
in  1787  and  at  Pittsburg  in  1797.  These  sales  were 


166  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

in  the  Seven  Ranges  as  surveyed  before  their  con- 
tinuation. But  although  so  little  land  in  the  North- 
west had  come  under  the  general  system  there  was 
a  considerable  amount  subject  to  authorized  settle- 
ment. This  included  the  Ohio  Company's  purchase, 
the  Symmes  purchase,  the  Virginia  and  the  Con- 
tinental bounty  lands,  the  private  claims  at  the 
French  settlements,  and  certain  smaller  grants.  In 
1800  the  Connecticut  Reserve  passed  to  the  na- 
tional jurisdiction  but  not  to  the  public  domain. 

The  Act  of  1796  provided  for  the  appointment 
of  a  Surveyor-General  who  should  proceed  to 
divide  the  lands  ceded  at  Greeneville,  but  until 
seven  ranges  were  surveyed  no  land  could  be  sold. 
The  only  sales  under  this  act,  therefore,  were  of 
tracts  in  the  original  Seven  Ranges.  No  appro- 
priation for  surveys  was  made  in  1796,  but  in  the 
next  three  years  $48,519  were  granted  so  that  when 
the  act  of  1800  established  land  offices  at  Steuben- 
ville,  Marietta,  Chillicothe,  and  Cincinnati,  enough 
land  had  been  surveyed  to  permit  of  a  commence- 
ment of  the  public  sales  in  1801.  A  new  land 
office  was  established  at  Zanesville  in  1803,  but  it 
was  still  within  the  Greeneville  cession. 

The  next  extension  of  the  land  system  was  in 
the  Southwest.  The  Mississippi  Territory  had  been 
erected  in  1798  in  spite  of  Georgia's  pretensions, 
although  the  issue  was  never  joined,  and  in  1802 
the  deed  of  cession  by  that  State  cleared  the  na- 
tional title  to  the  entire  region  south  of  Tennessee. 
But  it  left  a  tangle  of  Spanish  and  British  grants, 


THE   EXTENSION   OF   THE   LAND   SYSTEM     167 

Yazoo  claims,  and  squatters'  rights.  Over  the 
greater  part  of  this  region  the  Indian  title  was 
still  unextinguished.  In  1801  and  1802  the  Choc- 
taws  had  confirmed  their  cessions  of  1765,  which 
included  a  strip  along  the  Mississippi  from  Vicks- 
burg  to  the  Louisiana  line  and  in  Alabama  between 
the  Tombigbee  and  Chickasawhay  rivers.  It  was 
necessary,  therefore,  for  Congress  to  proceed  to 
quiet  the  claims  of  the  Chickasaws,  Creeks,  Choc- 
taws  and  Cherokees,  then  to  confirm  or  reject  the 
private  land  claims,  to  settle  or  repudiate  the 
Yazoo  claims  and  finally  to  make  some  arrange- 
ment for  the  settlers  who  had  moved  into  the  re- 
gion before  the  lands  could  be  placed  on  public 
sale. 

The  Act  of  1803,  therefore,  extended  the  land 
system  to  the  region  south  of  Tennessee.  It  estab- 
lished two  land  offices,  one  for  the  country  east,  and 
the  other  for  that  west,  of  the  Pearl  River,  Missis- 
sippi. But  the  officials  were  to  be  chiefly  concerned 
with  the  investigation  of  private  land  claims  under 
Spanish  or  British  grants,  and  of  claims  of  settlers 
in  1797  to  donation  lands,  and  of  others  to  pre- 
emption. The  Register  and  two  other  persons 
appointed  by  the  President  were  to  act  as  Com- 
missioners in  each  district.  A  "  surveyor  of  the 
lands  of  the  United  States,  south  of  the  State  of 
Tennessee"  was  appointed,  but  with  his  deputies 
he  was  to  lay  off  the  confirmed  claims  and  then 
proceed  to  divide  the  unappropriated  lands,  to 
which  the  Indian  title  was  extinguished,  into  half 


168  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

sections.  Twenty  thousand  dollars  were  appro- 
priated for  these  surveys  and  other  expenses. 

Under  this  act  and  its  early  amendments  the  two 
boards  of  Commissioners  were  occupied  for  sev- 
eral years  with  the  various  private  land  claims. 
The  first  land  sold  south  of  the  Ohio  under  the 
regular  system  was  in  1807  at  the  land  offices  estab- 
lished under  the  Act  of  1803.1  In  1805  the  Chick- 
asaws  and  Cherokees  made  over-lapping  cessions  in 
Tennessee  and  Northern  Alabama;  these  were 
brought  under  the  land  system  by  the  Act  of  1807 
which  directed  that  they  be  surveyed  and  author- 
ized the  President  to  establish  a  land  office  for  their 
sale. 

In  the  meanwhile  a  first  step  had  been  taken  to- 
ward the  extension  of  the  land  system  over  the 
rest  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  for  in 
1804  the  Surveyor-General  had  been  instructed  to 
have  the  lands  there,  to  which  the  Indian  title  had 
been  or  shall  hereafter  be  extinguished,  surveyed  in 
the  usual  way.  Three  land  offices  were  established, 
at  Vincennes  (Indiana),  Kaskaskia  (Illinois),  and 
at  Detroit  (Michigan),  the  whole  region  still  form- 
ing Indiana  Territory.  But  before  any  surveys 
could  be  made  the  private  land  claims  had  to  be 
investigated,  and  at  the  passing  of  the  act  but 
little  land  had  been  acquired  from  the  Indians. 
In  1803  most  of  the  tribes  which  had  joined  in 
the  Greeneville  Treaty  entered  into  a  second  which 

iln  1804,  the  S.  C.  cession  of  1787,  was  attached  to  the  Miss. 
Territory. 


THE   EXTENSION   OF   THE   LAND   SYSTEM     169 

defined  the  limits  of  the  cession  adjacent  to  Vin- 
cennes.  This  was  practically  all  the  land  open  to 
survey  in  Indiana  at  the  time  of  the  passing  of  the 
Act  of  1804,  with  the  exception  of  Clark's  Grant 
and  the  land  above  the  mouth  of  the  Kentucky 
River  ceded  in  1795.  In  Illinois  a  considerable 
cession  had  been  secured  from  the  Kaskaskias  in 
1803 — but  other  tribes  disputed  the  region.  The 
next  year  a  valuable  tract  along  the  Ohio,  in  In- 
diana, was  secured  from  the  Delawares  and 
attached  to  the  Vincennes  district,  the  cession  being 
ratified  in  1805  by  the  Miamis,  Eel  Rivers,  and 
Weas,  who  in  turn  continued  the  ceded  land  east- 
ward to  the  Greeneville  Treaty  line.  In  the  latter 
year,  also,  the  Piankishaw  Indians  turned  over  a 
tract  which  completed  the  acquisition  of  the 
entire  north  bank  of  the  Ohio,  from  the  Pennsyl- 
vania line  to  the  Mississippi.  In  1804,  the  Sacs 
and  Foxes  ceded  what  purported  to  be  the  north- 
west half  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  with  a  little  of 
Missouri  and  Wisconsin  as  well.  This  land  was 
attached  to  the  Kaskaskia  district  in  1805,  but 
other  treaties,  as  late  as  1833  in  one  case,  were 
necessary  before  the  claims  of  other  tribes  were 
satisfied.  The  first  land  sales  in  the  Indiana  Terri- 
tory took  place  at  Vincennes  in  1806.  It  was  not 
until  1814  that  lands  were  offered  in  the  Kaskaskia 
district,  due  to  the  delay  caused  by  the  private 
claims,  while  the  Detroit  office  was  not  opened 
until  1818. 

The  acquisition  of  Louisiana  in  1803-4  was  fol- 


170  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

lowed  by  the  erection  of  two  land  districts,  with  a 
Register  in  each,  in  the  Territory  of  Orleans  (later 
the  State  of  Louisiana),  while  a  Recorder  of  land 
titles  was  appointed  for  the  District  of  Louisiana 
(the  remainder  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase).  This 
Act  of  1805,2  was  concerned  with  the  examination 
of  private  land  claims,  it  extended  the  powers  of 
the  surveyor  of  public  lands,  south  of  Tennessee, 
over  the  Territory  of  Orleans,  but  it  established  no 
land  offices  nor  did  it  intimate  when  the  lands  would 
be  placed  on  sale.  The  next  year  the  powers  of  the 
Surveyor-General  were  extended  over  the  Terri- 
tory of  Louisiana3  while  another  act  of  the  same 
session  authorized  the  President  to  appoint  a  Re- 
ceiver for  the  western  district  of  the  Territory  of 
Orleans  and  to  place  the  surveyed  lands  therein  on 
sale.  But  twelve  years  were  to  elapse  before  any 
land  in  the  great  Louisiana  Purchase  was  placed 
on  public  sale.  In  the  meanwhile  vast  areas  were 
being  confirmed  as  private  claims  or  given  as  dona- 
tions to  early  settlers. 

In  1807  two  new  land  offices  were  opened,  one  at 
Jeffersonville,  Indiana,  for  land  on  the  Ohio  be- 
tween the  Cincinnati  and  Vincennes  districts,  and 
the  other  at  Canton,  Ohio,  for  land  between  the 
United  States  Military  tract  and  the  Connecticut 
Reserve,  the  Indian  title  to  most  of  which  having 
been  extinguished  in  1805.  At  this  time,  there- 

>  March  2,  1805. 

"Feb.  28,  1806,  ch.  11.     "District"  changed  to  "Territory"  by 
act  of  Mar.  3,  1805. 


THE   EXTENSION   OF   THE   LAND   SYSTEM     171 

fore,  there  were  six  land  offices  in  Ohio,  two  in  In- 
diana, and  two  in  Mississippi  Territory  where  lands 
were  on  sale. 

Although  the  Choctaws  had  made  a  very  impor- 
tant cession  in  1805  along  the  southern  border  of. 
Mississippi  (state)  the  land  was  not  attached  to  a 
land  district  until  1808,  while  the  land  ceded  in 
1805  by  the  Cherokees  and  Chickasaws  was  placed 
on  sale  in  1809  in  Madison  County,  Alabama.  No 
further  cessions  took  place  in  the  southwest  until 
after  the  war  of  1812,  and  during  those  years  of 
Indian  warfare  the  land  sales  were  greatly  reduced 
in  the  offices  east  and  west  of  the  Pearl  River. 

The  year  1805  had  been  rich  in  Indian  cessions. 
Nine  treaties  had  been  concluded  covering  terri- 
tory in  all  parts  of  the  public  domain  save  the  far 
northwest.  The  next  year  saw  but  a  single  treaty, 
that  with  the  Cherokees,  which  covered  ground 
already  ceded  in  1805.  Two  treaties  were  concluded 
in  1807,  one  of  them  with  the  Ottawas,  Chippewas, 
Wyandots  and  Potawatomis,  opening  up  the  first 
large  tract  of  public  land  in  Michigan ;  while  of  the 
two  treaties  in  1808,  one  covered  a  considerable 
territory  in  Missouri  while  the  other  gained  the 
right  of  way  for  two  roads,  one  from  the  rapids  of 
the  River  Miami,  which  flows-  into  Lake  Erie,  to 
the  Connecticut  Reserve,  along  which  land  for  one 
mile  on  each  side  was  ceded  for  settlement ;  and  the 
other  from  Lower  Sandusky,  Ohio,  to  the  Greene- 
ville  treaty  line  to  the  south,  but  in  this  case  no 
settlement  was  allowed.  The  cessions  of  1809  were 


172  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

in  Indiana  and  Illinois  and  were  attached  the  next 
year  to  the  Vincennes  and  Cincinnati  districts. 
Then  came  the  troubled  relations  with  the  tribes 
on  both  sides  of  the  Ohio  and  no  further  Indian 
treaties  were  made  until  1814  when,  after  Jack- 
son's defeat  of  the  Creeks,  they  were  penalized  to 
the  extent  of  about  half  the  area  of  Alabama  and 
a  wide  strip  along  the  southern  border  of  Georgia. 
After  1815  the  Indian  title,  especially  in  the  south 
was  rapidly  extinguished. 

The  Indian  title  to  most  of  the  present  state  of 
Louisiana  had  been  extinguished  before  the  Ameri- 
can occupation,  only  little  strips  on  the  northern 
and  northwestern  borders  were  acquired  by  the 
United  States.  The  delay  in  extending  the  land 
system  there  was  due  to  the  private  land  claims 
not  to  Indian  rights.  In  1811 4  provision  was  made 
for  the  establishment  of  four  land  offices  west  of 
the  Mississippi,  three  being  in  the  Territory  of 
Orleans,  and  one  in  the  Territory  of  Louisiana. 
The  former  were  to  be  at  New  Orleans,  Opelousas, 
and  at  a  place  north  of  the  Red  River  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  President.  This  act  also  designated 
the  first  day  of  January,  1812,  as  the  date  for  the 
commencement  of  the  sales  in  Orleans  Territory. 
But  this  date  proved  premature,  and  instead 
the  President  was  authorized  to  designate  the  day 
for  the  opening  of  the  offices.6  Before  this  act 
became  known  in  Louisiana  the  register  of  the 
Opelousas  office  and  the  principal  deputy  surveyor 

«  Mar.  3,  1811,  ch.  46.  »  Dec.  12,  1811,  ch.  4. 


THE   EXTENSION   OF   THE   LAND   SYSTEM     173 

there  had  proceeded  to  place  some  land  on  sale.  It 
required  special  legislation  to  permit  the  buyers  to 
complete  their  payments  and  secure  patents.6  No 
further  sales  were  made  for  several  years. 

The  next  land  office  was  established  in  1812  at 
Shawneetown,7  in  Illinois,  for  the  sale  of  lands  be- 
tween the  Kaskaskia  and  Vincennes  districts,  and 
as  there  were  no  private  land  claims  in  this  region 
it  was  possible  to  commence  the  public  sales  in  1814, 
before  any  land  was  sold  in  the  much  older  Kas- 
kaskia district.  It  was  in  1815,  also,  that  the  land 
along  the  road  in  Ohio,  ceded  in  1808,  was  attached 
to  the  Canton  district  and  placed  on  sale.  And 
provision  was  also  made  for  the  survey  and  sale 
of  the  rich  lands  in  Alabama,  ceded  by  the  Creeks 
in  1814.  This  cession  was  to  comprise  a  separate 
land  district,  the  land  office  at  first  being  established 
at  Milledgeville  and  in  1817  at  Cahawba.  The  first 
lands  were  sold  in  1816  and  within  the  year  this 
office  sold  land  worth  $753,849,  a  record  figure  up 
to  that  time. 

A  third  land  district  was  established  in  Illinois 
at  Edwardsville  in  1816,  which  included  the  ceded 
lands  north  of  the  base  line.  Although  the  greater 
part  of  Illinois  had  been  covered  by  the  Indian 
cessions  of  1803-4,  much  of  the  same  region  was 
not  finally  ceded  until  the  treaties  of  1816,  1818, 
and  1819.  Three  important  cessions  were  obtained 
in  1816  covering  rich  land  in  northern  and  eastern 
Alabama.  These  treaties  were  made  with  the 

«  July  1,  1812,  ch.  118.  »  Feb.  21,  1813,  ch.  29. 


174  THE    NATIONAL   LAND   SYSTEM 


THE   EXTENSION   OF   THE   LAND   SYSTEM     175 
KEY    TO    MAP    OF    LAND    OFFICES,    1821 

(1)  Marietta,   1800. 

(2)  Zanesville,  1803. 

(3)  Steubenville,    1800. 

(4)  Chillicothe,  1800. 

(5)  Cincinnati,   1800. 

(6)  Wooster,    (Canton,    1807). 

(7)  Piqua,  1819.     (Not  open). 

(8)  Delaware,  1819.     (Not  open). 

(9)  Vincennes,    1804.    (1806). 

(10)  Jeffersonville,    1807. 

(11)  Brookville,  1819.     (Not  open). 

(12)  Terre  Haute,  1819.     (Not  open). 

(13)  Shawneetown,   1812.   (1814). 

(14)  Kaskaskia,   1804.    (1814). 

(15)  Edwardsville,  1816. 

(16)  Palestine,   1819.     (Not  open). 

(17)  Vandalia,  1819.     (Not  open). 

(18)  Detroit,    1804.    (1818). 

(19)  St.  Louis,  1811.   (1818). 

(20)  Franklin,    (Howard   County)    1818. 

(21)  Cape  Girardeau,  1818.     (Not  Open). 

(23)  Polk  Bayou  (Lawrence  County,  Arkansas)  1818  (not  open). 

(23)  Little   Rock    (Arkansas   County)    1818    (not  open). 

(24)  Monroe    ("Northern    District    of    Louisiana")    1811     (not 
open). 

(25)  Opelousas    ("Southwestern    District    of    Louisiana")    1811 
(not  open.) 

(26)  New  Orleans,  1811.     (Not  open.) 

(27)  St.  Helena,  1819.     (Not  open.) 

(28)  Washington    ("West   of   Pearl    River")    1803.    (1807). 

(29)  Jackson  Cooirt  House,  1819.     (Not  open.) 

(30)  St.  Stephens   ("East  of  Pearl  River")    1803  (1807). 

(31)  Huntsville,    1803.    (1807). 

(32)  Cahawba,  1817.    (Milledgeville,  1816). 

(33)  Tuscaloosa,  1820.     (Not  open). 

(34)  Conecuh,  1820.    (Not  open.) 


Dates  in  parentheses   show  when  sales  commenced,  if  later   than 
opening  of  office.     (Not  open)  means  not  open  for  sales  in  1820. 


176  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

Cherokees,  Chickasaws  and  Choctaws.  The  next 
year  Congress  provided  for  the  surveying  of  the 
land  and  attached  it  to  the  Madison  County  dis- 
trict, the  land  office  of  which  was  Huntsville.  These 
lands  began  to  come  into  the  market  in  1817,  and 
as  has  already  been  pointed  out  the  combination  of 
rich  cotton  lands  and  cheap  money  caused  the  Ala- 
bama speculation  of  1818  and  1819.  The  sales  at 
Huntsville,  Alabama,  for  the  fiscal  year  1818-19 
amounted  to  774,989  acres  at  a  price  of  $4,775,303. 
At  Cahawba  1,046,564  acres  were  sold  at  a  price 
of  $3,764,431. 

Legislation  was  also  necessary  for  the  sale  of 
reserves  set  apart  for  any  reason.  Acts  of  this 
kind  would  attach  the  land  to  the  nearest  land  dis- 
trict and  provide  for  the  survey  and  sale.  Examples 
of  this  would  be  the  acts  covering  small  tracts  ceded 
at  Greeneville  in  1795:  the  two  mile  square  tract  at 
the  lower  rapids  of  Sandusky  River,  and  the  twelve 
mile  square  tract  at  the  rapids  of  the  Miami  of  the 
Lake  were  placed  on  sale  in  1817.  In  that  year 
also  the  unlocated  land  in  the  reserve  for  Canadian 
Refugees  was  attached  to  the  Chillicothe  District, 
and  two  years  later  the  unused  balance  of  the  100,- 
000  acres  granted  the  Ohio  Company  for  donations 
was  attached  to  Marietta. 

In  the  meanwhile  the  surveys  in  Missouri  had 
been  proceeding  rapidly.  In  1812  Congress  pro- 
vided for  such  surveys  as  the  President  might 
direct,  but  at  first  the  surveying  of  confirmed  claims 
and  donations  occupied  the  attention  of  the  sur- 


THE   EXTENSION   OF   THE   LAND  SYSTEM     177 

veyors.  Six  years  later,  when  about  9,000,000  acres 
had  been  surveyed,  Congress  prepared  for  placing 
the  lands  on  the  market  by  establishing  four  new 
land  offices-,  in  addition  to  the  one  at  St.  Louis. 
These  were  to  be  at  the  county  seats  of  Howard 
and  Lawrence  counties;  at  Jackson,  in  Cape  Gir- 
ardeau  County;  and  at  some  place  in  Arkansas 
County.  The  President  was  to  direct  that  the  lands 
be  placed  on  sale  when  he  saw  fit.  Two  land  offices 
were  opened  in  1818,  at  St.  Louis  and  at  Franklin, 
Howard  County,  just  in  time  to  serve  the  purpose 
of  the  land  speculators.  These  were  the  first  lands 
to  be  regularly  sold  in  the  Louisiana  Purchase. 

Earlier  in  the  year  the  first  land  sales — except 
of  preempted  lands — took  place  at  Detroit.  In  1819 
four  new  offices  were  established,  at  Piqua  and 
Delaware,  Ohio,  and  at  Brookville  and  Terre 
Haute,  Indiana,  the  two  latter  for  the  great  Miami 
cession  of  1818,  and  the  next  year  offices  were 
added  at  Tuscaloosa  and  Conecuh  Courthouse, 
Alabama,  and  at  Vandalia  and  Palestine,  Illinois, 
but  sales  did  not  commence  until  1821. 

To  follow  the  extension  of  the  land  system  across 
the  continent  would  be  a  tiresome  task.  Enough 
has  already  been  said  to  indicate  the  process  which 
was  only  repeated  year  after  year.  Indian  cessions, 
surveys,  sales — that  was  the  normal  process,  inter- 
fered with  at  times  by  private  land  claims  and 
always  by  squatters  after  preemption  became 
authorized.  But  this  normal  process  gave  some 
opportunity  for  political  operations.  Western  Con- 


178  TJIE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

gressmen  tried  to  hasten  the  extinguishment  of  the 
Indian  title,  tried  to  secure  increased  appropria- 
tions for  surveys  and  then  tried  to  have  the  work 
carried  on  in  their  respective  districts,  and  each 
one  would  have  liked  to  see  a  land  office  established 
at  his  home  town.  In  this,  as  in  so  many  other 
ways,  the  control  of  the  public  lands  was  a  vital 
question  generally  of  first  importance  in  the  minds 
of  the  western  peoples  and  their  vigorous  represen- 
tatives. 

At  the  end  of  the  credit  system  there  were  eight- 
een land  offices  open  for  the  sale  of  lands,  while 
others  had  been  established  solely  for  the  investi- 
gation and  confirmation  of  private  land  claims.  Of 
the  eighteen  offices,  twelve  were  northwest  of  the 
Ohio,  three  in  Alabama,  one  in  Mississippi  and  two 
in  Missouri.  The  accompanying  maps  show  the 
relation  of  the  Indian  cessions  to  the  extension  of 
the  land  offices. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   SYSTEM  OF   SURVEYS 

Most  important  of  all  the  provisions  of  the  great 
Ordinance  of  1785  was  that  which  required  sur- 
veys before  any  land  could  be  offered  for  sale,  and 
this  condition  was  insisted  upon  even  at  the  cost  of 
delayed  sales  and  increased  expense.  The  prior 
survey  has  been  of  inestimable  value  in  the  orderly 
settlement  of  the  great  west.  First  of  all  it  pro- 
vided definite  bounds,  free  from  overlapping 
claims,  to  every  land  holder ;  then  it  gave  a  security 
against  lost  or  forgotten  bounds,  for  with  the  gov- 
ernment records  every  point  could  be  redeter- 
mined ;  finally  it  rendered  possible  the  simplest  kind 
of  a  deed  for  the  conveyance  of  property.  A  line 
or  two  of  description  would  do  better  service  than 
a  whole  page  under  the  old  colonial  system.  Other 
benefits  derived  from  the  surveys  could  be  enumer- 
ated. The  trained  surveyors  were  required  to  re- 
port on  the  quality  of  the  lands  and  the  natural 
phenomena  coming  under  their  observation.  In  this 
way  a  great  amount  of  reliable  information  was 
obtained  along  with  the  extension  of  the  surveys. 
But  the  security  of  title  and  the  simplicity  of  con- 
veyance were  the  two  great  contributions  of  the 
land  surveys. 

179 


180  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

Prior  surveys  alone  would  not  have  secured  all 
these  advantages.  In  the  southern  states  and  in 
Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  surveys  were  required  to 
be  made  before  a  patent  could  pass.  But  these  sur- 
veys were  "  indiscriminate."  Under  that  system  it 
was  not  possible  for  the  surveyors  to  know 
accurately  what  other  surveys  had  been  made,  espe- 
cially when  large  tracts  were  being  laid  off,  so 
over-lapping  surveys  were  frequent  and  land  liti- 
gation was  constantly  going  on.  It  was  the  great 
work  of  the  men  of  1784  and  1785  to  insist  upon 
discriminate  surveys,  so  worked  out  that  no  possible 
confusion  could  result.  And  although  they  did 
this  in  a  general  way,  it  was  left  to  others  to  per- 
fect the  system  and  hand  it  down  to  us  in  its  pres- 
ent splendid  form. 

It  is  a  remarkable  thing  that  apparently,  and  of 
course  more  light  may  be  thrown  upon  this  point 
at  some  future  time,  the  method  of  executing  the 
discriminate  prior  surveys  aroused  little  opposition 
or  criticism  in  the  old  Congress,  nor  was  it  con- 
sidered important  enough  to  merit  discussion  in 
any  of  the  contemporary  correspondence  now  avail- 
able. Jefferson  was  chairman  of  the  committee 
which,  in  1784,  reported  the  first  proposed  land 
ordinance,  with  its  "  hundreds  "  of  ten  geographical 
miles  square,  and  its  lots  of  one  mile  square.  Unless 
evidence  to  the  contrary  may  be  found,  he  should 
be  credited  with  the  authorship  of  the  report.  But 
it  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  the  general 
plan  of  prior  surveys,  and  of  tiers  of  townships, 


THE    SYSTEM    OF    SURVEYS 


181 


N. 


N. 


36 

SO 

24 

18 

12 

6 

35 

29 

23 

17 

11 

5 

34 

28 

22 

16 

10 

4 

33 

27 

21 

15 

9 

3 

32 

26 

20 

14 

8 

2 

31 

25 

19 

13 

7 

1 

6 

5 

4 

3 

t 

1 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

18 

17 

16 

15 

14 

13 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

SO 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

SI 

32 

33 

34 

85 

36 

Ordinance  of  1785 


Act  of  1796 


Method  of  numbering  sections  in  a  township. 


A  township  in  the 

United  States 

Military  District, 

Ohio. 


d    d 


Four  sections  showing  legal 
subdivisions. 

a,  Section. 

b,  b,  b.     Half-section. 

c,  c.     Quarter-section. 

d,  d.     Half  quarter-section. 


PUBLIC  LAND  SURVEYS. 


182  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

was  already  in  operation  in  New  England  and  was 
later  insisted  upon  by  New  England  members  in 
1785.  In  other  words,  Mr.  Jefferson  did  not  "in- 
vent "  this  system  of  surveys,  he  merely  applied  a 
well  understood  system  to  the  greater  areas  of  the 
northwest.  At  that  session  of  Congress  he  was 
appointed,  with  Adams  and  Franklin,  to  a  diplo- 
matic mission,  remaining  abroad  until  the  end  of 
1789.  He  therefore  was  not  in  Congress  when  the 
Ordinance  of  1785  was  enacted,  nor  do  his  pub- 
lished writings  show  that  he  ever  expressed  any 
personal  interest  in  the  land  system,  as  would 
doubtless  have  been  the  case  if  he  had  been  the 
father  of  it.  In  fact,  on  hearing  of  the  enactment 
of  the  measure  he  wrote  to  Monroe,  "  I  am  much 
pleased  with  your  land  ordinance."  *  Although  Jef- 
ferson has  generally  been  credited  with  the  intro- 
duction of  the  system  of  surveys,  it  would  seem, 
from  the  above  facts,  that  his  services  were  slight 
and  might  well  have  been  performed  by  anyone 
else.  Some  credit  stfrely  belongs  to  the  men  who, 
in  1785,  perfected  the  rough  plan  and  made  it  law. 
The  system  of  surveys  established  in  1785  was 
based  upon  the  plan  of  1784,  with  certain  modifi- 
cations. The  townships  were  to  be  six  miles  square 
and  the  statute  mile  was  to  be  used.  The  first 
north  and  south  line  was  to  be  the  western  bound- 
ary of  Pennsylvania,  while  the  first  east  and  west 
line  was  to  run  from  the  intersection  of  the  former 
with  the  Ohio  River.  All  lines  were  to  be  run  by 

i  Jefferson,  Writings,  IV.,  86. 


THE    SYSTEM    OF    SURVEYS  183 

the  true  meridian,2  but  no  provision  was  made  for 
the  contracting  of  the  meridians  to  the  North. 

"  The  lines  shall  be  measured  with  a  chain ;  shall 
be  plainly  marked  by  chaps  on  the  trees,  and  ex- 
actly described  on  a  plat  whereon  shall  be  noted 
by  the  surveyor,  at  their  proper  distances,  all  mines, 
salt-springs,  salt-licks  and  mill-seats,  that  shall 
come  to  his  knowledge;  and  all  water-courses, 
mountains  and  other  remarkable  and  permanent 
things,  over  and  near  which  such  lines  shall  pass, 
and  also  the  quality  of  the  lands."  On  the  town- 
ship lines,  at  points  one  mile  apart,  the  corners 
of  the  "  lots  "  or  sections3  were  to  be  marked  "  in  a 
different  manner  from  those  of  the  townships." 
But  the  section  lines  were  not  to  be  run. 

The  only  surveys  under  the  Ordinance  of  1785 
were  those  of  the  Seven  Ranges  in  Ohio,  performed 
under  the  direction  of  Thomas  Hutchins,  Geog- 
rapher of  the  United  States,  in  1785-1789.  For 
several  years  no  further  surveys  were  made  and  in 
this  period  settlement  was  going  on  in  the  tracts 
purchased  by  the  Ohio  Company,  and  by  Symmes, 
in  the  Virginia  and  Connecticut  Reserves,  and  in 
the  lands  about  the  old  French  settlements.  When 
the  surveys  were  again  taken  up  it  was  evident  that 
it  would  not  be  possible  to  extend  them  progress- 
ively across  the  Northwest  Territory.  To  the  west 
of  the  Seven  Ranges  lay  the  lands  of  the  Ohio 

2  Repealed,  May  12,  1786.     J.,  IV.,  637.     Pickering  criticized  the 
report  of  1784  on  this  account.     Pickering,  I.,  506. 

3  "  Section  "  first  used  in  act  of  1796,  although  used  in  Report  of 
1785. 


184  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

Company  and  to  the  north  of  them,  but  with  some 
government  land  between,  lay  the  United  States 
Military  Reserve,  created  in  1706.  It  was  also  im- 
portant to  make  surveys  along  the  Ohio  River, 
between  the  Ohio  Company's  purchase  and  the  Vir- 
ginia Reserve,  and  again  between  Symmes  pur- 
chase and  the  Indian  Boundary  Line.  In  other 
words,  the  presence  of  already  alienated  land  pre- 
vented the  progressive  extension  of  the  surveys. 
It  would  have  been  possible  to  connect  up  the  sep- 
arate surveys  rendered  necessary  by  these  circum- 
stances, but  this  was  not  attempted  at  the  time, 
instead,  the  state  of  Ohio  contains  six  distinct  sur- 
veying areas,  and  out  of  this  confusion  developed 
the  first  great  improvement  in  the  system  of  sur- 
veys. 

First  of  these  areas  was  the  Seven  Ranges,  later 
extended  to  the  boundary  of  the  Connecticut  Re- 
serve and  increased  to  twenty-one  when  the  cession 
of  1805  was  surveyed.  There  the  townships  were 
numbered  from  the  Ohio  River  and  the  sections 
numbered  as  in  the  diagram,  figure  1,  in  the  case 
of  the  surveys  run  prior  to  1796.  To  the  west  lay 
the  United  States  Military  Reserve,  in  which  the 
townships  were  only  five  miles  square,  thus  prevent- 
ing a  continuation  of  the  township  lines  in  the 
Seven  Ranges.  The  ranges,  twenty  in  all,  were 
numbered  from  the  eastern  boundary,  and  the 
townships  from  the  southern.4  South  of  the  Mili- 

*  The  initial  point  for  these  surveys  was  the  southeast  corner  of 
the  reservation. 


THE    SYSTEM    OF    SURVEYS 


185 


;  'CONNECTICUT  RESERVE 


OHIO 


186  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

tary  Reserve,  and  bounded  by  the  Seven  Ranges, 
the  Ohio  Company's  lands,  the  Ohio  River,  and  the 
Virginia  Military  Reserve,  lay  fifteen  ranges  of 
public  lands  which  were  surveyed  under  the  Acts 
of  1796  and  1800.  Here  the  ranges  were  numbered 
in  continuation  of  the  Seven  Ranges,  making 
twenty-two  in  all,  and  the  townships  were  counted 
from  the  Ohio.  In  this  tract  the  surveys  were  made 
at  different  times  and  the  surveyors  did  not  suc- 
ceed in  connecting  up  the  surveys  very  accurately, 
moreover  many  fractional  townships  were  caused 
by  the  Scioto  River  and  the  broken  lines  of  the 
Ohio  Company's  grant.  In  all  the  public  lands 
except  the  Seven  Ranges  and  the  United  States 
Military  Reserve  the  sections  are  numbered  as  in 
the  diagram  figure  2. 

West  of  the  Virginia  Reserve,  and  between  the 
Great  and  Little  Miami  rivers,  lay  Symmes'  pur- 
chase. He  had  surveyed  not  only  the  lands  which 
were  finally  patented  to  him  but  others  to  the  north, 
and  had  sold  quantities  of  them.  This  caused  a 
variation  in  the  national  system  in  order  to  meet 
Symmes'  surveys.  The  ranges  were  numbered  from 
south  to  north,  starting  from  Symmes'  base  line, 
and  the  townships  from  west  to  east.  Symmes  had 
paid  little  attention  to  the  east  and  west  lines,  and 
the  rough  country  and  careless  chaining  caused 
odd-shaped  sections  to  be  formed. 

Between  the  Great  Miami  and  the  Indian  Bound- 
ary Line  the  surveys  were  governed  by  the  First 
Principal  Meridian,  which  runs  due  north  from  the 


THE    SYSTEM    OF    SURVEYS  187 

mouth  of  the  Great  Miami.  The  ranges  were  num- 
bered east  and  west  of  the  meridian  and  the  town- 
ships north  from  the  Ohio  River.  In  the  northwest 
corner  of  the  state  the  Indian  title  was  not  extin- 
guished until  1817  and  1818.  In  that  tract  the 
same  meridian  was  used,  but  the  forty-first  degree 
was  taken  as  a  base  line,  the  ranges  being  numbered 
east  of  the  meridian  and  the  townships'  numbered 
south  and  north  of  the  base  line.5 

In  this  way  six  distinct  surveying  areas  are  found 
in  the  public  lands  in  Ohio,  and  besides  these  are 
the  privately  surveyed  lands  of  the  Connecticut 
Reserve,  in  which  townships  five  miles  square  were 
laid  out,  and  of  the  Ohio  Company  and  Symmes 
purchases,  as  well  as  the  indiscriminately  surveyed 
lands  of  the  Virginia  Reserve. 

This  discussion  of  the  surveys  in  Ohio  has 
touched  upon  the  first  great  improvement  in  the 
surveys,  which  however  was  first  worked  out  in  In- 
diana. Captain  Jared  Mansfield,  U.  S.  A.,  suc- 
ceeded Rufus  Putnam,  the  first  Surveyor- General, 
in  1803.  It  was  necessary  for  him  to  survey  the 
Vincennes  Indian  grant  of  1795,  confirmed  in  1803, 
but  as  the  tract  was  surrounded  by  Indian  lands, 
cut  off  from  the  other  surveys  and  remote  from  the 
Ohio  River,  he  was  at  a  loss  as  to  how  to  proceed. 
If  he  tried  to  survey  the  tract  in  conformance  with 
the  lines  east  of  the  Greeneville  Treaty  line  he 
felt  sure  that  when  the  lines  were  connected  after 

5  For  the  Ohio  surveys,  see  Higgins,  Subdivisions  of  the  Public 
Lands,  92-117. 


188  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

the  Indian  title  to  the  intervening  land  was  secured 
there  would  be  great  confusion,  and  if  he  merely 
surveyed  the  tract  as  a  unit  he  would  destroy  any 
uniformity  of  surveys  in  the  Indiana  Territory. 
He  therefore  decided  to  base  the  surveys  upon 
great  lines  which  could  control  all  future  surveys 
in  that  region  and  to  this  end  he  ran  the  second 
principal  meridian,  through  the  northeast  corner 
of  the  cession,  and  for  a  base  line  he  used  a  line 
running  from  the  westernmost  corner  of  Clark's 
grant  on  the  Ohio — the  nearest  surveyed  land.  This 
was  the  beginning  of  the  combination  of  principal 
meridians  and  base  lines  which  have  been  used  in 
all  later  surveys.  Both  had  been  used  before — 
Mansfield  perfected  the  system  and  applied  his- 
brilliant  talents  to  the  astronomical  location  of  the 
important  points  from  which  surrounding  surveys 
could  be  made.  The  Second  Principal  Meridian 
governed  the  surveys  in  Indiana  and  those  in 
Illinois  to  the  western  boundary  of  the  fourteenth 
range  west,  from  that  line  to  the  Mississippi  and 
Illinois  rivers  the  surveys  have  been  based  on  the 
Third  Principal  Meridian,  which  runs  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Ohio  River.  The  lands  between  the 
Illinois  and  the  Mississippi  rivers  were  reserved 
for  bounties  of  the  War  of  1812,  and  to  expedite 
the  surveys,  as  the  intervening  land  had  not  been 
ceded,  a  Fourth  Principal  Meridian  was  established 
running  from  the  mouth  of  the  Illinois,  extended 
to  the  north  it  governed  the  surveys  in  Wisconsin 
and  in  Minnesota,  east  of  the  Mississippi.  In 


THE    SYSTEM    OF    SURVEYS  189 

Michigan  the  surveys  were  based  on  the  Michigan 
Meridian  which  runs  north  through  the  center  of 
the  peninsula.  The  last  Principal  Meridian  to  be 
determined  before  1820  was  the  Fifth,  which  runs 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Arkansas  River.  In  1815 
this  line  was  run  317  miles  and  a  base  line  com- 
menced from  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Francis  which 
reached  the  western  boundary  of  Arkansas  in  1841. 

A  further  development  of  this  combination  of 
principal  meridians  and  base  lines  was  the  use  of 
frequent  base  lines  to  correct  the  errors  caused  by 
the  convergence  of  the  meridians  to  the  north.  In- 
structions were  therefore  given  to  the  deputy  sur- 
veyors to  form  new  base  lines  twenty-four  miles 
north,  or  thirty  miles  south  of  the  existing  one — the 
difference  in  miles  being  due  to  the  more  marked 
convergence  to  the  north.  These  lines  were  later 
known  as  correction  lines.  Also  in  surveying  the 
great  areas  west  of  the  Mississippi  it  became  neces- 
sary to  run  guide  meridians  between  the  principal 
meridians,  the  ranges  being  still  numbered  from 
the  principal  meridians  but  the  surveys  being  based 
on  the  guide  meridians.6 

For  historical  reasons,  due  to  the  location  of  the 
Indian  cessions,  it  was  not  possible  to  use  one  or 
two  meridians  for  the  surveys  in  Mississippi  and 
Alabama.  Mississippi  was  surveyed  from  five  in- 
itial points.  To  the  south  the  Washington  merid- 
ian 91°  05'  west  of  Greenwich,  governed  the  sur- 
veys to  the  Pearl  River,  and  east  of  the  river  the 

«  Higgins,  121-138. 


190  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

St.  Stephen's  (Alabama)  meridian  88°  02'  west, 
was  used.  The  central  portion  of  the  state  was  sur- 
veyed from  the  Choctaw  meridian,7  90°05'  west, 
and  the  northern  part  from  the  Chickasaw  merid- 
ian,8 89°  12'  west,  while  a  few  townships  east  of  the 
Tombigbee  were  governed  by  the  Huntsville, 
(Alabama) ,  meridian,  86° 81'  west.  The  Alabama 
surveys,  however,  have  all  been  made  from  the  two 
meridians  mentioned,  the  state  being  about  evenly 
divided,  the.  northern  part  controlled  by  the  Hunts- 
ville and  the  southern  part  by  the  St.  Stephen's 
meridian.  Finally,  for  the  Louisiana  lands  east  of 
the  Mississippi  the  St.  Helena  meridian  was  used, 
differing  but  slightly  from  the  Washington  merid- 
ian used  in  Mississippi  to  the  north,  the  former  be- 
ing 91°  05'  west,  and  the  latter,  91°  11'  west,  while 
for  the  lands  west  of  the  river  the  Louisiana  merid- 
ian, 92°  20'  west,  was  used.  The  base  line  for  the 
St.  Stephen's,  Washington,  St.  Helena,  and  Louis- 
iana meridians  is  the  31°  north  latitude.  For  the 
Huntsville  and  Chickasaw  meridians  the  35th  par- 
allel is  used,  while  for  the  Choctaw  meridian  the 
base  line  runs  from  its  southern  extremity. 

An  extended  account  of  the  method  of  executing 
the  surveys  would  be  out  of  place  in  a  study  of  this 
kind.  A  brief  account  would  only  confuse  the  non- 
expert and  would  be  of  no  value  to  the  specialist. 
An  excellent  account  of  the  early  surveys  is  given 
in  Niles'  Weekly  Register9  for  April  12,  1817,  a 

7  Cessions  of  1820  and  1830.  s  Cession  of  1832. 

»NilesT  Register,  12,  98-99. 


THE    SYSTEM    OF    SURVEYS  191 

selection  from  which  will  doubtless  give  the  more 
interesting  features  of  the  system  at  that  time. 

"  The  north  and  south  lines  are  run  by  the  true 
meridian,  and  the  east  and  west  lines  at  right 
angles  therefrom,  as  far  as  practicable,  in  closing. 
But  as  the  east  and  west  lines  are  made  the  closing 
lines  of  the  sections  or  townships,  they  frequently 
vary  a  little  from  those  points;  being  run  from  one 
section  or  township  corner  to  another.  The  lines 
are  well  marked  by  having  all  those  trees  which 
fall  in  the  line  notched  with  two  notches  on  each 
side  where  the  line  cuts,  and  all  or  most  of  the  trees 
on  each  side  of  the  line  and  near  it  blazed  on  two 
sides,  diagonally  or  quartering  towards  the  line. 

"At  the  section  corners  there  are  posts  set,  hav- 
ing as  many  notches  cut  on  two  sides  of  them  as 
they  are  miles  distant  from  the  township  boundary, 
where  the  sectional  lines  commenced.  At  the  town- 
ship corners  the  posts  have  six  notches  made  on 
each  of  the  four  sides  facing  the  lines.  Wherever 
a  tree  falls  exactly  in  the  corner,  it  supplies  the 
place  of  a  post,  and  is  marked  in  the  same  manner. 
The  places'  of  the  posts  are  perpetuated  thus:  at 
each  corner  the  courses  are  taken  to  two  trees,  in 
opposite  directions  as  nearly  as  may  be,  and  their 
distance  from  the  post  measured.  These  trees  are 
called  'bearing  trees,'  and  are  blazed  on  the  side 
next  the  post,  and  one  notch  made  with  an  axe  in 
the  blaze.  But  in  prairies,  or  other  places  where 
there  are  no  trees,  within  a  convenient  distance  for 
bearings,  a  mound  of  earth  is  raised  at  each  corner, 


192  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

not  less  than  two  and  a  half  feet  high,  nor  less  than 
that  in  diameter  at  the  base,  in  which  the  mound- 
posts  are  placed. 

"  At  the  section  corners,  the  numbers  of  each 
section,  together  with  the  numbers  of  the  township 
and  range,  are  marked  with  a  marking  iron  (such 
as  are  used  in  mills  and  warehouses)  on  a  bearing 
or  other  trees  standing  within  the  section  and  near 
to  the  corner,  thus:  A  blaze,  large  enough  for  the 
purpose,  is  made  on  the  tree,  and  on  the  blaze  the 
letter  R.  is  made,  with  the  number  of  the  range  an- 
nexed; below  this  the  letter  T.  with  the  number  of 
the  township;  and  under  that  the  number  of  the 
section,  without  any  letter  to  denote  it.  To  the 
number  of  the  township  the  letter  N.  or  S.  is  added, 
according  as  the  township  lies  north  or  south  of  the 
base-line;  and  to  the  number  of  the  range,  the 
letter  E.  or  W.  as  the  range  may  be  east  or  west 
of  the  principal  meridian.  By  proper  attention  to 
these  numbers  and  marks  a  purchaser  is  enabled  to 
know  the  quarter  and  number  of  the  section  he 
wishes  to  enter,  and  the  number  of  the  township 
and  range  in  which  it  lies.  .  .  . 

"  The  quarter  section  corners  are  established  in 
the  same  manner  that  the  section  corners  are,  but 
no  marks  are  made  for  the  numbers  of  the  section, 
township  and  range;  '1-4  S. '  only,  is  marked  on 
the  post. 

"  On  the  township  and  range  lines,  the  section 
corners  are  established  and  marked  only  for  the 
townships  adjoining  on  the  north  and  west  of 


THE    SYSTEM    OF    SURVEYS  193 

those  lines  respectively ;  because  in  the  subdivisions 
of  the  townships  into  sections,  the  lines  are  run 
out  from  the  south  and  east,  to  the  north  and  west 
boundaries  of  the  townships,  and  the  corners  estab- 
lished thereon  at  the  intersection,  for  those  sections 
between  which  the  lines  are  thus  run.  These  lines 
generally  intersect  the  north  and  west  boundaries 
of  the  townships  a  few  links  distant  from  the  cor- 
ners, thereon,  of  sections  in  the  adjacent  town- 
ships; in  all  which  cases  there  are  two  corners 
adjacent  to  each  other,  and  bearing  trees  and  posts 
for  each;  and,  without  proper  attention  to  the 
marks,  and  to  the  courses  of  the  lines,  it  might  be 
somewhat  difficult  for  persons  exploring  the  land, 
to  distinguish  them  from  each  other.  But  where 
the  section  lines  intersect  the  township  boundaries 
at  the  corners  thereon,  such  corners  become  com- 
mon to  the  sections  in  both  townships;  the  proper 
marks  and  numbers  being  made  for  and  within 
each. 

"  The  deputy  surveyors  are  required  to  note  par- 
ticularly, and  to  enter  in  their  field  books,  the 
courses  and  distances  of  all  lines  which  they  may 
run ;  the  names  and  estimated  diameters  of  all  cor- 
ner or  bearing  trees,  and  all  those  trees  which  fall 
in  the  lines,  called  station  or  line  trees,  together 
with  the  courses  or  distances,  of  the  bearing  trees 
from  their  respective  corners,  with  the  proper  let- 
ters and  numbers  marked  on  them;  all  rivers, 
creeks,  springs  and  smaller  streams  of  water,  with 
their  width,  and  the  course  they  run  in  crossing  the 


THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

line,  and  whether  navigable,  rapid,  or  otherwise; 
also  the  face  of  the  country,  whether  level,  hilly  or 
mountainous ;  the  kinds  of  timber  and  undergrowth 
with  which  the  land  may  be  covered,  and  the  quality 
of  the  soil;  all  lakes,  ponds,  swamps,  peat  or  turf 
grounds,  coal  beds,  stone  quarries;  uncommon  nat- 
ural or  artificial  productions,  such  as  remains  of 
antient  fortifications,  mounds,  precipices,  caves, 
&c.,  all  rapids,  cascades  or  falls  of  water;  min- 
erals, ores,  fossils,  &c.  The  true  situation  of  all 
mines,  salt  licks,  salt  springs  and  mill  seats  which 
may  come  to  their  knowledge.  From  the  returns 
of  the  surveys  thus  made,  a  complete  knowledge 
of  the  country  may  be  obtained,  and  maps  thereof 
drawn  with  the  greatest  accuracy.  The  field  notes 
of  the  surveyors,  together  with  the  plats  and  de- 
scriptions, made  out  therefrom,  are  filed  in  the 
office  of  the  surveyor-general  of  the  United  States, 
or  of  the  principal  surveyors  for  the  territories  of 
Mississippi,  Illinois  and  Missouri."  10 

This  brief  description  gives  a  very  good  idea  of 
the  early  surveying  methods.  Excellent  as  they 
were  at  the  time  they  have  been  much  improved 
since.  But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  all  the 
lines  were  run  according  to  the  instructions.  Errors 
in  locating  starting  points,  difficulties  in  running 
surveys  through  densely  wooded  country  or  over 

i*  For  information  regarding  the  early  surveys,  see  Niles'  Regis- 
ter, 12:97-101,  406-8;  16:362-3.  For  field  notes  of  a  survey  in  1812, 
see  P.  L.  II.,  735-7.  For  the  general  subject  see  Higgins,  Sub- 
divisions of  the  Public  Lands.  For  later  surveys  see  Donaldson, 
The  Public  Domain  (1884). 


THE    SYSTEM    OF    SURVEYS  195 

rough  ground,  and  at  time  needless  carelessness, 
caused  irregular  surveys  and  much  confusion.  In 
1798,  Rufus  Putnam,  the  first  Surveyor-General, 
urged  that  the  lines  be  run  by  the  magnetic  merid- 
ians rather  than  by  the  true  meridian,  because  of 
the  necessity  of  taking  frequent  accurate  obser- 
vations.11 Fortunately  Congress  refused  to  con- 
sider the  change.  It  was  early  appreciated  that 
the  convergence  of  the  meridians  would  distort  the 
shape  of  the  townships,  so  in  1800  it  was  provided 
that  the  excess  or  deficiency  should  be  added  to 
or  deducted  from  the  western  or  northern  ranges 
of  sections  or  half  sections.12  All  the  other  divi- 
sions were  to  be  sold  as  containing  the  legal  quan- 
tity, but  those  on  the  north  and  west  sides  should 
be  sold  as  containing  only  the  specific  quantity  ex- 
pressed on  the  plats.  In  Arkansas,  especially, 
some  very  remarkable  townships  were  laid  out  due 
to  careless  surveying.  This  provision  of  1800  was1 
enacted  in  another  form  in  1805,13  when  it  was  held 
that  the  tracts  would  be  considered  as  containing 
the  exact  quantity  contained  in  the  surveyor's  re- 
turns. Frequent  attempts  were  made  by  land  pur- 
chasers to  secure  indemnification  for  errors  in  the 
surveys.  But  without  success.  At  times  these 
errors  were  considerable,  and  a  hardship  was  in- 
curred, but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  happened  quite 
as  frequently  that  the  purchaser  would  profit. 
The  execution  of  the  first  surveys  was  entrusted 

11  P.  L.  I.,  83.  12  May  10,  1800. 

is  Feb.  11,  1805. 


196  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

to  Thomas  Hutchins,  the  Geographer  of  the 
United  States,  and  to  the  surveyors  elected  by 
Congress,  one  for  each  State.  They  were  to  be 
paid  $2.00  for  each  mile,  including  all  expenses 
incurred.  Under  the  Act  of  1796.  a  Surveyor- 
General  for  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio 
was  commissioned,  Rufus  Putnam  holding  the  first 
appointment,  from  1797-1803.  He  received  a  sal- 
ary of  $2,000  a  year  and  was  authorized  to  select 
his  assistant  surveyors.  The  entire  cost  of  the  sur- 
veys was  limited  to  $3.00  a  mile.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Jared  Mansfield,  who  served  until  1814, 
later  serving  as  a  professor  at  West  Point.  In 
1803  a  surveyor  south  of  Tennessee  was  appointed, 
whose  powers  were  extended  over  Orleans  Terri- 
tory in  1805,  while  those  of  the  Survey  or- General 
were  extended  to  Louisiana  Territory  the  next 
year.  In  1816  a  surveyor  for  Illinois  and  Missouri 
was  appointed,  the  latter  territory  including  Ar- 
kansas. The  next  year  a  surveyor  for  the  lands  in 
northern  Mississippi  was  appointed,  and  his  pow- 
ers were  confined  to  Alabama  by  Act  of  1818. 
Such  was  the  organization  of  the  surveying  forces 
in  1820.  The  Surveyor- General,  whose  district  was 
now  confined  to  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Michigan,  and 
the  three  other  surveyors,  appointed  their  deputies 
and  directed  the  surveys  within  their  districts. 
This  organization  was  not  a  perfect  one.  Delay 
and  confusion  resulted  from  having  the  surveyor 
south  of  Tennessee  in  charge  of  the  surveys  in 
Louisiana,  but  it  was  not  until  1831  that  a  surveyor 


THE    SYSTEM    OF    SURVEYS  197 

for  the  latter  State  was  provided.  So  a  later  de- 
velopment was  the  providing  of  a  surveyor-general 
for  each  State,  as  is  the  custom  to-day.  When  the 
surveys  within  a  State  were  completed,  the  office 
was  closed  and  the  records  transferred  to  the  State. 
The  first  State  to  possess  these  records  was,  natu- 
rally, the  first  public  land  State,  Ohio  receiving  the 
records  of  the  surveys  within  her  limits  on  July 
29,  1846. 

After  1820  the  surveys  were  gradually  per- 
fected. New  meridians  and  new  base  lines  were 
used  for  the  extension  of  the  surveys  until  they 
reached  the  shores  of  the  Pacific.  Some  changes 
were  necessary  when  the  mines  of  the  West  were 
being  located  upon  the  public  lands,  and  doubt- 
less provision  should  have  been  made  for  a  more 
equitable  division  of  water  rights  in  the  arid  re- 
gions. But  these  questions  arose  long  after  the  pe- 
riod of  the  present  study.  In  1820,  at  all  events, 
the  surveys  were  being  rapidly  extended  and  were 
playing  an  important  part  in  the  orderly  settle- 
ment of  the  rich  lands  of  the  Middle  West. 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE   CONFIRMATION"   OF    FOREIGN    TITLES 

One  of  the  most  troublesome  problems  affecting 
the  public  domain  was  the  confirmation  of  foreign 
titles.  As  the  United  States  from  time  to  time 
took  over  foreign  soil  it  was  called  upon  to  con- 
firm the  existing  property  rights  in  the  acquired 
territory.  This  would  have  been  comparatively 
simple  if,  under  the  former  rulers,  the  granting  of 
land  had  been  conducted  under  a  uniform  system 
and  if  the  titles  held  by  the  claimants  were  subject 
to  easy  proof.  But  such  was  not  the  case.  In  the 
country  northwest  of  the  Ohio  were  settlers  claim- 
ing under  French  and  British  grants,  in  the  south- 
west were  claimants  under  British  and  Spanish. 
In  Louisiana  there  were  French  and  Spanish,  in 
Florida,  British  and  Spanish,  and  in  California  and 
the  far  Southwest  claims  founded  on  Spanish  and 
Mexican  grants.  Very  few  indeed  of  these  grants 
had  ever  been  perfected;  many  of  them  were 
merely  permissions  to  settle.  In  legislating  for 
them,  Congress  was  dealing  with  land  systems 
which  it  little  understood,  and  in  dealing  with  them 
in  a  legislative  instead  of  a  judicial  way  it  had  to 
devote  to  them  more  time  than  it  could  well  spare 
and  yet  not  as  much  time  as  the  intricate  subject 

198 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      199 

demanded.  In  dealing  with  these  foreign  titles  the 
object  of  Congress,  as  described  by  Gallatin,  was 
"  to  guard  against  unfounded  or  fraudulent  claims, 
to  confirm  all  bona  fide  claims  derived  from  a  legit- 
imate authority,  even  when  the  title  had  not  been 
completed,  and  to  secure  in  their  possession  all  the 
actual  settlers  who  were  on  the  land  when  the 
United  States  took  actual  possession  of  the  coun- 
try where  it  was  situated,  even  though  they  had 
only  a  right  of  occupancy." *  It  is  easy  to  realize 
that  this  was  a  most  difficult  undertaking.  Where 
few  of  the  settlers  held  perfected  grants  it  was  dif- 
ficult to  legislate,  for  stringent  rules1  framed 
against  fraudulent  claims  would  affect  old  settlers 
whose  titles  were  incomplete,  while  moderate  re- 
quirements would  offer  an  opportunity  to  the  land- 
grabbers.  But  until  the  foreign  titles  were  con- 
firmed it  would  be  unwise  to  survey  and  sell  any 
land  about  the  settled  districts.  So  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  claims  held  up  the  extension  of  the  land 
system.  In  the  meanwhile  the  American  settlers, 
unable  to  buy  land  from  the  government,  would 
purchase  foreign  land  claims  or  would  calmly  set- 
tle on  available  vacant  land.  It  was  the  presence 
of  this  new  element  which  always  complicated  the 
process  of  confirmation.  The  land  speculators 
would  buy  up  claims  and  transfer  them  from  hand 
to  hand,  and  there  were  always  those  who  would 
make  false  oaths  and  swear  to  suit  the  occasion. 
The  "  squatters  "  would  petition  for  relief  because 

i  Gallatin,  writings,  III,  220. 


200  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

the  land  sales  were  being  delayed,  and  frequently 
a  preemption  was  allowed  such  settlers  long  after 
the  territory  came  under  the  American  flag.  In 
these  ways,  and  in  others  to  be  mentioned,  the  for- 
eign titles  affected  the  regular  American  system. 

A  study  of  Congressional  action  on  foreign  land 
titles  would  make  a  considerable  book  in  itself. 
Uniform  legislation  seemed  impossible  because  of 
the  different  historical  conditions  in  each  case.  In 
its  desire  to  confirm  the  claims  and  open  up  the 
vacant  land  for  settlement  Congress  would  pass 
hasty  and  ill-considered  laws  which  would  require 
constant  adaptation.  Generally  Congress  would 
empower  specially  appointed  commissioners  or  the 
Registers  and  Receivers  of  land  offices  to  pass 
upon  the  claims  and  report.  This  would  require 
the  enactment  of  rules  for  the  determination  of  the 
claims,  and  after  the  report  was  transmitted  Con- 
gress would  have  to  confirm  or  reject  the  claims. 
It  was  not  until  1824  that  land  claims  were  allowed 
to  be  settled  in  court,  and  that  only  in  Missouri 
and  Arkansas.  The  policy  developed  slowly  and 
not  uniformly.  If  Congress  could,  at  the  very  be- 
ginning, have  erected  a  tribunal  with  extensive 
powers  to  settle  decisively  all  land  claims,  it  would 
doubtless  have  expedited  the  process  and  prevented 
many  of  the  abuses  that  grew  up  under  the  system 
of  Congressional  control. 

At  various  times  Congress  had  to  to  deal  with 
five  bodies  of  foreign  land  claims,  those  in  the  old 
Northwest,  the  old  Southwest,  the  Louisiana  coun- 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      201 

try,  Florida,  and  the  Mexican  Southwest.  It  will 
serve  the  purpose  of  this  study  if  only  the  first 
of  these  groups  is  examined,  for  in  the  Northwest 
were  conditions  similar  to  those  found  elsewhere, 
although  the  grants  were  not  so  extensive,  and  in 
meeting  them  Congress  laid  down  precedents  for 
later  legislation. 

The  Treaty  of  Paris,  at  the  close  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, made  the  United  States  mistress  of  a  great 
amount  of  territory  lying  between  the  Alleghenies 
and  the  Mississippi,  which,  although  claimed  by 
various  States,  had  never  been  under  the  adminis- 
tration of  any  of  the  original  States.2  In  this  re- 
gion were  settlers  whose  grants,  if  they  possessed 
any,  were  derived  from  the  preceding  governments 
in  the  Northwest,  from  France  or  Britain,  in  the 
Southwest  from  Britain  or  Spain.  The  Treaty  of 
Paris  confirmed  the  property  rights  of  these  set- 
tlers, and  in  the  case  of  the  settlers  in  the  North- 
west their  interests  were  further  safeguarded  by 
the  terms  of  the  Virginia  cession.  In  the  unac- 
cepted offer  of  1781 3  Virginia  had  stipulated  that 
the  French  and  other  inhabitants  of  the  Northwest 
who  professed  themselves  citizens  of  Virginia 
should  have  their  possessions  confirmed  to  them, 
and  this  clause  was  retained  in  the  accepted  offer 
of  1784.  The  attention  of  Congress  was  directed 
to  the  settlers  there  because  this  was  the  first  region 
to  become  available  for  national  land  sales,  and 

2  Except  the  Virginia  occupation,  1779-1787. 
sHening,  X.,  564-7. 


202  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

until  the  foreign  titles  were  roughly  estimated  or 
confirmed  no  safe  land  sales  could  take  place. 

In  1788,  when  the  great  land  sales  to  companies 
were  under  way,  George  Morgan  and  his  associates 
desired  a  large  tract  of  land  on  the  Mississippi. 
This  led  to  a  consideration  of  the  claims  of  the 
French  settlers  in  the  Illinois-  country,  and  the  fol- 
lowing report  was  adopted  by  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  on  June  20,  1788.4  In  the  first 
place,  the  committee  reported  that  there  were  only 
a  few  settlers  to  consider.  At  Kaskaskias  there 
were  "  near  eighty  families  " ;  at  Prairie  du  Roch- 
er,  twelve  families;  at  Kahokia,  near  fifty  fami- 
lies, and  at  Fort  Chartres  and  St.  Philip's,  four  or 
five  families.  It  was  the  custom  for  the  heads  of 
families  to  have  a  certain  quantity  of  arable  land 
allotted  to  them  and  a  share  of  the  meadow,  wood, 
and  pasture  land.  The  committee  recommended 
that  the  claims  for  lands  held  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Revolution  should  be  satisfied  and  that  an  ad- 
ditional reserve  might  be  made  to  meet  their  future 
needs.  It  was  agreed,  therefore,  that  a  general  re- 
serve should  be  set  apart  for  the  claims  of  those 
who  were  citizens  of  the  United  States  "  or  any 
one  of  them  "  before  1783,  and  in  this  reserve  do- 
nations were  to  be  laid  out  of  400  acres  to  each 
head  of  a  family.  These  donations  were  to  be  dis- 
tributed by  lot,  and  they  could  not  be  alienated 
until  the  grantee  had  lived  three  years  in  the  dis- 
trict after  the  distribution.  The  Governor  of  the 

*J.  IV.,  823-4. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      203 

Northwest  Territory  was  to  examine  the  titles  and 
lay  off  the  land  at  the  expense  of  the  claimants. 

This  resolution  is  given  in  detail  because  it  shows 
the  apparent  simplicity  of  the  process  of  confirm- 
ing the  claims  on  the  Mississippi.  About  150  fam- 
ilies were  to  be  considered,  and  these  possessed  so 
little  land  that  Congress  was  willing  to  offer  400 
acres  as  a  donation  to  each  head  of  a  family.  Un- 
fortunately Governor  St.  Clair  found  the  matter 
far  more  complicated.  ' 

In  August  similar  resolutions  were  passed  in 
favor  of  the  settlers  at  Vincennes,  on  the  Wabash.5 
In  this  case,  also,  only  the  claims  of  those  who  had 
settled  before  1783  and  who  had  professed  them- 
selves citizens  of  the  United  States  were  to  be  con- 
firmed, while  a  donation  of  400  acres  was  to  be  made 
to  each  head  of  a  family.  On  the  preceding  day  the 
donation  reserves  on  the  Mississippi  were  ordered 
to  be  located  outside  and  east  of  the  general  re- 
serve,6 a  change  which  happened  to  throw  them 
into  very  poor  land.  But  all  ancient  improve- 
ments were  to  be  considered  reserved  for  their 
owners. 

These  resolutions  of  the  old  Congress  only  ap- 
plied to  the  settlers  at  Vincennes  and  on  the  Mis- 
sissippi about  Kaskaskia.  Nothing  was  done  about 
the  settlers  in  Michigan  or  in  other  parts  of  the 
Northwest,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  American 
occupation  of  the  latter  regions  did  not  commence 

8  Aug.  29,  1788.     J.  IV.,  858.        « Aug.  28,  1788.     J.  IV.,  857. 


204  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

until  June,  1796.  Moreover,  the  Governor  was 
given  complete  powers  to  determine  claims  and  lay 
off  donations;  he  was  only  required  to  report  his 
proceedings  to  Congress.  No  date  was  set  for  the 
final  presentation  of  claims. 

It  was  not  until  February,  1790,  that  Governor 
St.  Clair  could  visit  Kaskaskia  and  organize  civil 
government  there,  while  he  was  forced  to  send 
Winthrop  Sargent,  the  Secretary,  to  attend  to  the 
affairs  at  Vincennes.  It  was  the  report  of  the 
latter,  of  July  81,  which  first  came  to  the  atten- 
tion of  Congress  and  showed  conclusively  that  fur- 
ther legislation  was  necessary. 

At  Vincennes,  Sargent  found7  that  the  records 
were  very  imperfect,  that  not  one  title  in  twenty 
was  complete,  and  that  oral  testimony  had  to  be 
accepted  instead  of  written  documents.  The  orig- 
inal concessions  made  by  the  French  or  British 
commandants  were  generally  made  on  a  scrap  of 
paper,  and  although  it  was  the  custom  to  lodge 
them  with  the  notary,  that  official  kept  no  book  of 
records,  and  the  loose  papers  were  frequently  lost 
or  abstracted.  At  one  time  the  royal  notary  "  ran 
off  with  all  the  public  papers  in  his  possession," 
while  in  the  period  between  1777  and  1788,  "the 
records  have  been  so  falsified,  and  there  is  such 
gross  fraud  and  forgery,  as  to  invalidate  all  evi- 
dence and  information "  which  might  have  been 
acquired  from  them. 

In  June,  1779,  a  court  of  civil  and  criminal  juris- 
7  p.  L.  i,  9-ie. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      205 

diction  had  been  established  by  Virginia,  and  this 
court,  without  any  authorization,  proceeded  to 
grant  lands.  Between  1779  and  1783,  26,000  acres- 
were  apparently  granted,  and  22,000  more  up  to 
1787,  when  General  Harmar  put  a  stop  to  it,  but 
many  of  these  grants  might  have  been  forged  in 
the  notary's  office.  Sargent  was  unwilling  to  con- 
sider any  of  these  grants  "rightful  claims,"  al- 
though in  a  few  cases  improvements  had  been 
made. 

Again,  there  had  been  some  movement  of  settlers 
between  the  French  settlements,  which,  under  the 
law,  would  deprive  them  of  grants  at  either  place; 
there  were  131  residents  of  Vincennes  who  had 
done  militia  service  and  who,  in  many  cases,  be- 
came heads  of  families  shortly  after  1783;  there 
were  5,400  acres  of  land  used  as  a  common  by  the 
people  of  Vincennes  for  which  no  provision  was 
made;  and  there  were  a  number  of  persons  settled 
on  a  150-acre  tract  originally  granted  to  the  Pian- 
kishaw  Indians,  but  by  them  gradually  sold  to  the 
settlers'. 

After  laying  these  deserving  cases  before  Con- 
gress, Sargent  further  reported  that  he  had  in- 
structed the  surveyor  to  lay  off  certain  lands  prop- 
erly claimed  by  the  residents,  that  he  had  approved 
donations  to  120  men  and  23  women  who  were 
heads  of  families  in  1783,  and  that  he  had  laid  out 
but  withheld  donations  for  fifteen  heads  of  fami- 
lies who  had  removed. 

Governor  St.  Clair  reported  his  proceedings  at 


206  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

Kaskaskia  in  a  letter  of  February  10,  1791. 8  The 
situation  there  was  similar  to  that  at  Vincennes. 
In  addition  to  the  court  grants  were  those  of  Todd 
and  De  Numbrun,  lieutenants  of  the  County  of 
Illinois,  appointed  by  Virginia,  and  there  were  also 
lands  claimed  under  the  purchases  from  the  Kas- 
kaskia Indians.  St.  Clair  also  reported  that  the 
residents  were  too  poor  to  pay  for  the  surveys  of 
their  confirmed  claims.  '  The  Illinois  country,  as 
well  as  that  upon  the  Ouabash,  has  been  involved 
in  great  distress  ever  since  it  fell  under  the  Amer- 
ican dominion.  With  great  cheerfulness  the  peo- 
ple furnished  the  troops  under  General  Clarke,  and 
the  Illinois  regiment,  with  everything  they  could 
spare,  and  often  with  much  more  than  they  could 
spare,  with  any  convenience  to  themselves:  most 
of  the  certificates  for  those  supplies  are  still  in  their 
hands,  unliquidated  and  unpaid;  and  in  many  in- 
stances, where  application  for  payment  has  been 
made  to  the  State  of  Virginia,  under  whose  author- 
ity the  certificates  were  granted,  it  has  been  re- 
fused. The  Illinois  regiment  being  disbanded,  a 
set  of  men,  pretending  the  authority  of  Virginia, 
embodied  themselves,  and  a  scene  of  general  depre- 
dation and  plunder  ensued.  To  this  succeeded 
three  successive  and  extraordinary  inundations 
from  the  Mississippi,  which  either  swept  away  their 
crops  or  prevented  their  being  planted.  The  loss 
of  the  greatest  part  of  their  trade  with  the  Indians, 
which  was  a  great  resource,  came  upon  them  at  this 

•  P.  L.  I,  18-22. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      207 

juncture,  as  well  as  the  hostile  incursions  of  some 
of  the  tribes  which  had  ever  before  been  in  friend- 
ship with  them;  and  to  these  was  added  the  loss 
of  their  whole  last  crop  of  corn  by  an  untimely 
frost.  Extreme  misery  could  not  fail  to  be  the 
consequence  of  such  accumulated  misfortunes." 

Acting  upon  these  reports  Congress  passed  its 
act  of  March  3,  1791,  which  greatly  increased  the 
scope  of  the  confirmations.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that  at  this  time  no  land  in  the  Northwest 
was  being  sold  by  the  United  States.  Persons  de- 
siring to  purchase  lands  would  have  to  apply  to 
the  two  companies  on  the  Ohio,  or  to  the  holders 
of  Virginia  warrants.  This  act  met  all  the  points 
raised  by  Sargent.  Donations  were  to  be  given  to 
heads  of  families  who  had  moved  from  one  settle- 
ment to  the  other  since  1783,  and  they  could  elect 
where  the  donation  should  be  laid  out.  Heads  of 
families  who  had  left  the  settlements  since  1783 
might  secure  the  donations  if  they  would  return 
and  occupy  them  within  five  years.  Lands  "ac- 
tually improved  and  cultivated"  under  any  sup- 
posed grant  of  a  court  or  a  commandant  were  to 
be  confirmed  up  to  400  acres;  and  those  persons, 
not  having  received  a  donation,  who  were  enrolled 
in  the  militia  on  August  1,  1790,  and  who  had  done 
service,  were  to  receive  100  acres.  The  150  acres 
purchased  from  Piankishaw  Indians  at  Vincennes 
were  confirmed  to  the  occupiers,  and  the  commons 
at  Vincennes,  Cahokia  and  Prairie  du  Pont  were 
appropriated  to  the  use  of  the  respective  villagers. 


208  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

Finally,  on  the  Mississippi,  the  donation  reserves 
were  to  be  laid  out  according  to  the  resolution  of 
June  20,  1788,  thus  including  a  considerable 
amount  of  good  land,  while  two  private  claims  of 
a  special  nature  were  confirmed.  This  act,  also, 
continued  the  power  of  the  Governor  to  make  the 
grants-  enumerated.  But  the  donations  and  con- 
firmations proceeded  very  slowly.  The  disastrous 
Indian  campaign  of  1791,  and  then  a  lack  of 
proper  surveyors,  delayed  actions.  St.  Clair  also 
hesitated  about  confirming  the  court  grants  be- 
cause of  the  discretionary  powers  involved.  On 
account  of  the  troubled  nature  of  the  country  many 
deserving  people  had  not  been  able  to  make  exten- 
sive improvements,  on  which  alone  confirmations 
could  be  based,  and  in  some  cases  the  husband  and 
father  had  been  slain,  leaving  to  the  widow  and 
fatherless  only  a  claim  to  land.  St.  Clair,  there- 
fore, believed  that  the  intention  of  the  grantee  and 
not  the  improvement  of  the  grant  should  be  con- 
sidered, that  a  person  contemplating  a  bona  fide 
settlement  should  be  confirmed  in  his  claim  up  to 
400  acres.  In  the  meanwhile  few  confirmations 
had  been  made,  and  as  the  years  passed  it  was  be- 
coming more  difficult  to  prove  former  improve- 
ments or  to  challenge  false  statements.  A  further 
difficulty  arose  from  the  fact  that  land  was  claimed 
under  improvement  in  the  tracts  reserved  for  the 
location  of  the  donations.  In  1798  Winthrop 
Sargent,  then  Governor  of  Mississippi  Territory, 
stated  that  he  had  approved,  at  Vincennes,  claims 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES     209 

for  22,572  acres  and  authorized  donations  of  103,- 
800  acres.9  He  had,  in  1797,  added  sixty  names 
to  the  heads  of  families,  and  fifty-nine  to  the  mili- 
tiamen, as  the  result  of  the  investigations  of  a 
board  of  four  commissioners  appointed  by  him.10 

For  several  years  the  matter  rested,  the  Gover- 
nor, William  Henry  Harrison,  after  1802,  acting 
on  the  claims  from  time  to  time.  Jay's  treaty,11 
followed  by  the  Indian  cessions  at  Greeneville,12 
and  the  withdrawal  of  the  British  from  the  West- 
ern posts  in  June,  1796,  had  an  immediate  effect 
on  the  land  system.  The  Indian  treaty  led  to  the 
general  act  of  1796  for  the  disposal  of  lands.  Jay's 
treaty  brought  under  the  administration  of  the 
United  States  a  number  of  settlers  whose  property 
rights  were  protected  by  that  agreement.  Yet 
eight  years  elapsed  before  Congress  made  any  ef- 
fort to  confirm  the  land  claims  in  Michigan. 

In  1802  the  attention  of  Congress  was  called  to 
an  amazing  situation  at  Vincennes.13  Governor 
Harrison  reported  that  the  members  of  the  court 
established  by  Virginia  had,  before  dissolution,  di- 
vided among  themselves  the  entire  region  to  which 
the  Indian  title  had  been  extinguished,  "  each  mem- 
ber absenting  himself  from  the  court  on  the  day 
that  the  order  was  to  be  made  in  his  favor,  so  that 
it  might  appear  to  be  the  act  of  his  fellows  only." 
For  years  the  grant  was  quiescent,  but  lately  it 

9  P.  L.  II.,  84r90.  10  P.  L.  I.,  576. 

11  Concluded,   Nov.   19,   1794.     Ratified,  June  24,  1795. 

12  Signed,  Aug.  3,  1795.  i»  P.  L.  I.,  122. 


210  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

was  discovered  by  some  land  speculators  who  be- 
gan to  purchase  large  tracts  under  it  and  pro- 
ceeded to  resell  them  in  remote  parts  of  the  coun- 
try. Land  was  sold  for  a  song,  a  thousand  acres 
for  a  rifle  or  an  indifferent  horse.  Harrison  had 
no  intention  of  confirming  these  claims,  but  feared 
that  many  settlers  would  arrive  seeking  lands 
under  such  grants. 

The  first  carefully-drawn  act  for  the  confirma- 
tion of  foreign  titles  was  that  of  1803  respecting 
claims  in  the  Southwest.14  This  set  a  definite  pe- 
riod in  which  all  claims  must  be  recorded,  it  cre- 
ated two  commissions  to  pass  upon  the  claims, 
gave  them  power  to  administer  oaths  and  examine 
witnesses,  and  made  their  decisions  final.  In  this 
case  the  commissioners  in  each  district  were  to  be 
the  Register  of  the  land  office  therein,  and  two  other 
persons  appointed  by  the  President.  The  method 
outlined  in  this  act  was  a  great  improvement  on 
the  system  in  operation  in  the  Northwest,  and  it 
was  soon  introduced  in  the  latter  region. 

The  Indian  agent  at  Detroit  had  been  instructed 
to  report  on  the  claims  to  land  in  that  region.  Mr. 
Jouett  proceeded  to  visit  all  the  settlements,  from 
Otter  Creek,  forty-two  miles  southwest  of  Detroit, 
to  the  St.  Clair  (Sinclair)  River,  and  found  there 
some  fourteen  settlements,  aside  from  Detroit,  with 
342  families  located  under  all  sorts  of  titles,  from 
perfected  French  grants  to  mere  occupancy.15 
This  report,  dated  July  25,  1803,  was  submitted  to 

"  Mar,  3,  1803,  cb.  27,  "  p.  L.  I.,  190-193. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES     211 

Congress  on  February  17,  of  the  next  year,  in  time 
to  be  considered  when  the  act  for  the  sale  of  lands 
in  Indiana  Territory,  which  then  included  Michi- 
gan, was  under  discussion. 

This  act 16  established  land  offices  at  Vincennes, 
Kaskaskia,  and  Detroit,  and  appointed  the  Register 
and  Receiver  of  each  office  to  act  as  commissioners 
for  the  determining  of  all  claims  to  land  within 
their  respective  districts.  These  commissioners 
could  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses,  admin- 
ister oaths,  and  examine  witnesses,  but  after  they 
had  decided  the  claims  they  were  to  report  their 
decisions  to  Congress  for  its  further  action.  All 
persons  claiming  under  "  legal "  French  or  British 
grants  or  under  any  resolution  of  Congress  were 
to  deliver  to  the  Register  a  notice  of  their  claims, 
as  well  as  all  evidence  thereof,  before  January  1, 
1805,  otherwise  all  right,  based  on  any  resolution 
of  Congress,  would  become  void. 

This  act,  therefore,  while  providing  for  the  first 
time  a  method  of  confirmation  for  titles  in  Mich- 
igan, also  subjected  all  the  confirmations  and  dona- 
tions in  Indiana  and  Illinois  to  a  review,  and  that, 
too,  after  many  of  these  tracts  had  changed  hands. 
Moreover,  no  provision  was  made  for  incomplete 
foreign  grants,  nor  would  settlement  alone  be  con- 
sidered. Under  this  act  but  very  few  titles  could 
be  confirmed  in  the  Detroit  district. 

Congress,  however,  did  not  insist  upon  the  terms 
of  this  severe  act.  At  the  next  session  the  time 

I     ie  Mar.  26,  1804,  ch.  35. 


212  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

for  submitting  claims  and  evidence  was  extended 
to  November  1,  1805,  while  evidence  of  possession 
and  actual  settlement  might  be  advanced  as  a  claim 
to  land.17 

The  commissioners  at  Detroit  submitted  a  par- 
tial report  in  December,  1805,18  in  which  they 
stated  that  lands  in  their  district  were  claimed  un- 
der seven  different  titles :  First,  grants  in  fee  simr 
pie  by  Cadillac,  commandant  at  Detroit  early  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  which  needed  no  confirma- 
tion by  the  crown — of  these  there  were  two  ad- 
vanced. Second,  grants  by  the  governors  and  in- 
tendants  of  New  France  and  Louisiana,  which  had 
been  confirmed  by  the  King  of  France — of  these 
there  were  six.  Third,  similar  grants,  but  uncon- 
firmed by  the  King.  Fourth,  grants  by  the  com- 
mandants at  Detroit.  Fifth,  claims  derived  from 
the  British  government — of  which  there  were  about 
one  hundred.  Sixth,  Indian  grants.  Seventh,  ac- 
tual settlement  and  occupation — about  four  hun- 
dred. Their  final  report,  on  March  6,  1806,  recom- 
mended only  six  claims  for  confirmation  and  trans- 
mitted a  great  mass  of  rejected  claims.19 

The  commissioners'  at  Vincennes  reported  on 
March  25.20  They  submitted  three  classes  of 
claims,  those  decided  on  and  confirmed  by  the  gov- 
ernors, those  not  decided  on  by  the  governors,  and 
those  not  embraced  by  any  act  of  Congress".  In 
the  former  class  they  found  difficulty  in  determin- 

IT  M«r.  3,  1805,  ch.  43.        «  P.  L.  I.,  263-284.       «  P.  L.  I.,  305. 
«•  P.  L.  I..  «88-S03.     P.  L.  VII.,  675-797.     P.  L.  I.,  558-591. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      213 

ing  whether  the  confirmation  was  based  on  French 
or  British  grants  or  on  improvements  under  a 
court  deed ;  in  all,  354  had  been  made.  They  found 
that  243  grants  of  donation  lands  had  been  made, 
and  221  militia  donations  as  well.  Of  the  previ- 
ously undecided  claims  they  recommended  for  con- 
firmation 19  based  on  ancient  French  and  British 
grants,  16  based  on  improvements  under  court 
deeds,  13  militia  donations,  and  17  donations  to 
heads  of  families.  They  also  rejected  a  number  of 
claims  because  of  lack  of  evidence,  and  laid  before 
Congress  several  claims  based  on  unauthorized  In- 
dian purchases  and  on  the  extensive  fraudulent 
grants  made  by  the  court  at  Vincennes.  In  a  sup- 
plementary report  of  November  26,21  the  commis- 
sioners transmitted  a  list  of  grants  and  confirma- 
tions by  the  governors  which  had  not  been  pre- 
sented by  the  then  claimants,  and  the  question  was 
raised  as  to  whether  their  failure  to  comply  with 
the  law  of  1804  could  invalidate  their  titles.  Two 
additional  donation  claims  were  favorably  re- 
ported. 

Before  these  reports  were  laid  before  Congress 
two  acts  were  passed  concerning  these  perplexing 
titles.  One  authorized  the  Governor  and  Judges 
of  Michigan  Territory  to  lay  out  a  town  to  take 
the  place  of  old  Detroit,  destroyed  by  fire  on  June 
11,  1805.22  In  the  enlarged  townsite  lots  were  to 
be  granted  to  American  citizens  who  were  resident 

21  P.  L.  I.,  559-581.  22  p.  L.  I.,  947. 


214.  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

there  at  its  destruction.23  The  other  authorized  the 
laying  out  of  tracts  near  Vincennes  and  Kaskaskia 
in  which  all  grants  were  to  be  located.24 

It  was  desirable  that  Congress  take  some  action 
on  the  commissioners'  reports.  Until  the  claims 
were  confirmed  there  could  be  no  land  sales  in  the 
Kaskaskia  and  Detroit  districts,  while  the  delay 
only  served  to  render  the  records  and  the  evidence 
more  confusing.  The  commissioners  at  Kaskaskia 
had  reported  that  they  could  not  finish  their  labors 
in  time  for  Congressional  action  in  1806.25  The 
situation  there  was  an  interesting  one  because  of 
the  fraud  which  was  evident  in  the  land  claims. 
Congress  waited  another  year,  and  then  acted  on 
the  two  reports  before  it. 

These  acts  of  March  3,  1807,26  presented  fur- 
ther proof  of  the  sympathetic  attitude  of  Congress 
toward  the  settlers  during  foreign  rule.  In  Mich- 
igan the  claims  recommended  by  the  commissioners 
were  confirmed,  and  claims  based  on  actual  settle- 
ment prior  to  July  1,  1796,  were  to  be  confirmed 
up  to  640  acres,  but  only  one  tract  to  each  claim- 
ant, provided  they  had  been  submitted  to  the  late 
commissioners.  For  deciding  on  the  rights  of  the 
claimants  the  Secretary  of  the  Territory  was  added 
to  the  Register  and  the  Receiver  of  the  Land  Of- 
fice, and  as  commissioners  they  were  to  decide  the 
cases  "according  to  justice  and  equity."  Their 

23  Apr.  21,  1806,  ch.  43.  2*  Apr.  21,  1806,  ch.  40. 

25  P.  L.  I.,  285. 

""  Michigan,  ch.  34.     Indiana,  ch.  47. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES     215 

decisions  were  to  be  final,  and  on  their  certificate 2T 
a  patent  would  eventually  issue.  At  Vincennes, 
the  claims  reported  favorably  by  the  commissioners 
were  confirmed,  and  all  the  confirmations  by  the 
governors  as  reported  by  the  commissioners  were 
also  confirmed,  except  in  the  case  of  those  actually 
rejected  by  the  latter.  The  claimants  of  244  acres 
under  an  Indian  grant  were  likewise  confirmed  in 
their  possessions.  Finally,  the  commissioners  at 
Kaskaskia  were  allowed  until  December  1,  1807, 
to  complete  their  report. 

On  that  date,  however,  the  commissioners  at 
Kaskaskia  reported  that  they  had  by  no  means  fin- 
ished their  inquiries.  This  delay  was  due  to  the 
extensive  perjuries  attempted  in  that  district.  In 
this  report  they  stated  that  no  less  than  seven  hun- 
dred depositions  given  at  St.  Charles,  Upper  Loui- 
siana, bearing  upon  claims  in  Kaskaskia  were  per- 
jured, while  two  hundred  depositions  sworn  before 
the  board  were  acknowledged  false.28  In  fact,  they 
had  confirmed  nearly  forty  claims  for  four  hun- 
dred acres  each,  to  one  man,  on  evidence  of  this 
nature,  which  they  finally  rejected. 

The  Michigan  commissioners,  in  turn,  recom- 
mended that  an  extension  of  time  be  granted  in 
their  district  for  the' presentation  of  claims,  because 
the  ignorant  Canadian  settlers  had  not  known  or 
realized  the  necessity  of  entering  their  claims  in 
due  time.29  Moreover,  some  settlers  claimed  more 

2T  Must  be  entered  with  the  Register  before  Jan.  1,  1809,  and  hii 
certificate  must  be  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
as  p.  L.  I.,  590.  20  Sept.  1,  1807.     P.  L.  I.,  592-3. 


216  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

than  one  farm  and  should  be  confirmed  in  them, 
although  the  act  permitted  only  a  single  confirma- 
tion, while  the  old  farms  on  the  Detroit  River 
should  be  extended  for  the  "continuation"  of 
eighty  arpents,80  instead  of  forty  arpents,  as  was 
the  custom.  Settlers  between  1796  and  the  pres- 
ent time  should  also  receive  some  land. 

This  report  shows  how  difficult  it  was  for  even 
a  generous  Congress  to  deal  out  absolute  equity. 
It  was  promptly  taken  up,  and  the  Act  of  April 
25,  1808,  met  each  recommendation.  Land  claims 
might  be  presented  before  January  1,  1809.  Per- 
sons holding  40-arpent  tracts  might  preempt  the 
"  continuation  "  before  that  date.  Settlers  between 
July  1,  1796,  and  March  26,  1804,  might  obtain 
preemption  for  not  over  one  section,  and  their 
claims  must  be  presented  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  others  for  the  commissioners'  decision.  Finally, 
more  than  one  tract  could  be  confirmed  to  settlers 
before  1796,  but  still  not  more  than  640  acres. 

A  very  little  consideration  would  show  that  this 
act  would  not  be  satisfactory  in  its  treatment  of 
the  recent  settlers.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
no  public  land  was  on  sale  in  this  district  at  the 
time.  The  preemption  to  settlers  between  1796 
and  1804  was  based  on  the  fact  that  as  no  land 
office  was  open  they  had  been  forced  to  enter  va- 
cant land  without  purchase.  But  why  make  the 
final  date  1804?  It  was  selected  because  of  the 
act  of  that  date  providing  for  the  sale  of  lands  in 

»<>Arpent=4/5  acre. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES     217 

this  region,  but  as  no  sales  had  been  made  nor 
could  be  made  until  the  surveys  had  been  extended, 
it  followed  that  unauthorized  settlements  contin- 
ued after  1804,  and  the  latter  settlers,  in  turn,  ex- 
pected a  preemption  of  their  improvements. 

The  next  year31  it  became  necessary  to  revive 
and  continue  the  powers  of  the  Kaskaskia  commis- 
sioners until  1810  and  to  authorize  them  to  con- 
sider the  claims  at  Peoria,  while  a  special  agent 
was  appointed  to  investigate  claims  and  oppose 
fraudulent  ones.32  The  long-delayed  report  was 
finally  finished  on  February  24,  1810,  and  trans- 
mitted to  Washington.33  The  commissioners 
pointed  out  the  difficulties  under  which  they  had 
labored;  the  wretched  state  of  the  ancient  records, 
which  rendered  it  practically  impossible  to  trace 
titles  from  original  concessions;  the  difficulty  in 
determining  the  improvements  made  so  long  ago — 
in  this  case  the  commissioners  insisted  upon  the 
actual  raising  of  a  crop  or  crops  and  not  the  mere 
barking  or  deadening  of  trees;  the  confusion  re- 
sulting from  the  emigration  to  Louisiana  of  resi- 
dents entitled  to  donations  or  .militia  rights;  and, 
finally,  the  wholesale  perjury  which  was  practiced. 
Fifteen  men  were  named  whose  depositions  were 
pronounced  false,  some  of  them  swearing  to  as- 
many  as  twenty  claims.  A  study  of  the  rejected 
claims  shows  how  frequently  the  decision  was  based 
on  "perjury"  or  "forgery." 

81  Feb.  15,  1809.  32  June  15,  1809,  ch.  3. 

sap.  L.  II,  133-141.     Transcripts  dated  Dec.  31,  1809. 


218  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

The  commissioners  did  not  report  on  any  claims 
previously  confirmed  by  the  governors,  but  in  addi- 
tion to  these  they  recommended  favorably  22 
claims  founded  on  ancient  grants,  89  based  on  im- 
provements, 254  donations  to  heads  of  families 
resident  before  1788,34  and  279  militia  rights.  They 
also  reported  on  the  claims  to  the  common  fields 
and  town  lots  at  Kaskaskia,  Cahokia,  Prairie  du 
Rocher,  Fort  Chartres,  and  Prairie  du  Pont. 

By  mistake  only  the  transcript  of  the  first  three 
classes  of  claims  was  transmitted  to  Congress,  so 
these  alone  were  confirmed  by  the  Act  of  May  1, 
1810.  Now,  for  the  first  time,  the  holders  of  these 
lands  could  feel  sure  of  their  titles.  But  no  action 
had  been  taken  on  the  governors'  confirmations  or 
on  the  common  fields  and  town  lots. 

At  this  session35  the  subject  was  opened  again 
at  Vincennes,  when  the  land  officers  were  in- 
structed to  receive  until  November  1  the  claims  for 
donation  lands  of  persons  who  were  minors  or 
were  absent  from  the  territory  when  the  other 
claims  were  being  presented.  The  commissioners 
reported  on  May  27,  1812,  and  recommended  22 
donation  and  six  militia  claims.36  They  also  pre- 
sented a  number  of  rejected  claims  and  called  at- 
tention to  five  claims  for  militia  lands  based  upon 
residents  who  had  been  killed  by  the  Indians  be- 
fore August,  1790,  as  well  as  three  valid  claims 
which  did  not  properly  come  before  them  because 

8<  No  legal  authority  for  donations  after  1783. 

SB  Apr.  30,  1810,  ch.  35.  se  p.  L.  II.,  455-463. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES     219 

the  claimants  were  not  minors  nor  absentees  when 
the  claims  were  formerly  filed.  Congress,  how- 
ever, confirmed  the  recommended  claims,  as  well 
as  the  eight  special  ones.37 

This  digression  has  broken  the  chronological  se- 
quence of  events  in  the  Northwest.  The  uncon- 
firmed claims  reported  by  the  Kaskaskia  commis- 
sioners were  taken  into  consideration  by  Congress, 
and  in  1811  two  reports38  were  made  by  Jeremiah 
Morrow,  chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Public  Lands,  recommending  that  the  claims  to 
common  fields  and  town  lots  in  Illinois  be  con- 
firmed, but  that  the  decisions  of  the  governors 
should  be  reexamined. 

Morrow  called  attention  to  the  remarkable  dis- 
crepancy between  the  150  families  mentioned  un- 
der the  original  resolution  of  1788  and  the  great 
number  of  donation  claims  confirmed  since,  and  he 
held  that  even  at  this  late  date  Congress  had  the 
right  to  examine  into  the  acts  of  the  governors.  If 
they  exceeded  their  instructions  and  made  confir- 
mations not  authorized  by  law,  or  if  they  for  any 
reason  accepted  fraudulent  evidence,  in  such  cases 
their  acts  should  not  stand. 

Although  a  measure  of  this  kind  was  bound  to 
arouse  opposition,  for  during  the  past  twenty 
years  evidence  in  support  of  good  titles  might  have 

37  Feb.  13,  1813,  ch.  23.  Locations  in  the  reserved  tract  were  to 
be  made  before  Oct.  1,  1813,  extended  to  July  1,  1815.  (Dec.  26, 
1814,  ch.  14,)  then  to  Sept.  1,  1818  (Mar.  18,  1818,  ch.  18). 

3»Febf  15,  J8J1,  P.  L.  II.,  254;  Dec.  17,  1811,  P.  L.  II.,  257. 


220 

disappeared,  yet  Congress  adopted  the  report  and, 
in  1812,39  confirmed  the  claims  to  common  fields 
and  town  lots  in  Illinois  and  authorized  the  Regis- 
ter and  Receiver  at  Kaskaskia  and  one  other  per- 
son to  inquire  into  the  validity  of  claims  to  land 
in  their  district  derived  from  confirmations  made 
by  the  governors  of  the  Northwest  or  Indiana 
Territory. 

The  three  commissioners  under  this  act  reported 
on  January  4,  1813,  as  follows:40  Of  the  claims 
confirmed  by  St.  Clair  and  Harrison  as  founded 
on  ancient  grants  they  recommended  15,  ques- 
tioned 9,  and  referred  3  for  the  special  action  of 
Congress;  of  the  confirmations  based  on  improve- 
ments they  recommended  105,  questioned  35,  and 
referred  3;  of  the  donations  to  heads  of  families 
they  approved  154,  questioned  36,  and  referred  fa- 
vorably 17;  of  the  militia  donations  they  recom- 
mended 212,  and  questioned  only  2.  On  January 
18  the  Register  forwarded  18  donation,  9  improve- 
ment, and  4  militia  claims  which  had  not  been  sub- 
mitted in  time,  but  which  he  recommended  for  con- 
firmation.41 And  he  added:  "A  confirmation  of 
these,  and  there  will  be  an  end  to  this  perplexing 
business ;  unless,  indeed,  the  government  should  in- 
dulge the  speculators  with  the  privilege  of  a  re- 
investigation  of  claims  rejected  by  the  former 
Board.  On  this  subject  I  can  only  observe,  that  I 
am  wearied  with  these  painful  duties,  which,  for 

3»  Feb.  20,  1812,  ch.  22.  *o  P.  L.  II.,  210-241. 

"P.  L.  II.,  741-3. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      221 

eight  years  past,  it  has  fallen  to  my  lot  to  dis- 
charge. Nor  do  I  believe  the  government  would 
be  doing  justice  to  itself,  or  its  officers,  by  extend- 
ing this  indulgence.  When  witnesses  have  been 
suborned,  when  the  ancient  records  have  been  re- 
cently interpolated,  and  when  the  officers  who 
dared  to  discharge  their  solemn  duty  have  been 
attempted  to  be  made  the  victims  of  this  corrup- 
tion, it  is  time  to  close  the  doors  against  the  admis- 
sion of  new  frauds." 

The  next  year  Congress  confirmed  all  the  claims 
not  actually  rejected  by  the  commissioners.42  As 
many  of  these  claims  were  not  specially  located,  it 
was  necessary  to  provide  for  them,  so  a  large  re- 
serve was  set  apart  on  the  Mississippi.  Persons 
actually  resident  there  before  February  5,  1813,43 
were  to  be  entitled  to  the  preemption  of  640  acres 
or  less,  while  the  rest  of  the  tract  was  subject  to 
location  by  the  possessors  of  confirmed  claims. 
This  right  expired  on  May  1,  1815. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  this  action  was  not 
final.  The  following  year  the  land  officers  at  Kas- 
kaskia  reported44  for  confirmation  24  improve- 
ment claims  which  had  previously  been  confirmed 
for  less  than  400  acres  and  of  which  the  balance 
was  desired;  17  donations  for  heads  of  families;  1 
militia  donation,  and  2  improvement  claims  which 
had  not  been  submitted  in  time  for  the  former 

42  Apr.  16,  1814,  ch.  61. 

43  The  date  of  the  general  preemption  act  for  Illinois  Territory. 
«  P.  L.  III.,  1-5. 


222  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

report.  Congress  promptly  confirmed  these  claims 
and  extended  the  time  for  the  registration  of  con- 
firmed claims  until  October  1,  1816.45  The  period 
of  registration  was  later  extended  to  November  1, 
1820.46 

These  acts  practically  settled  all  the  claims  to 
lands  in  Illinois  under  ancient  grants  or  donations 
of  Congress.  Later  legislation  was  necessary  to 
confirm  the  claims  of  settlers  in  Peoria  before  Jan- 
uary 1,  1813,  but  this  affected  only  seventy  claims 
and  was  easily  attended  to.47  About  the  same  time 
the  inhabitants  of  Cahokia  were  authorized  to  lay 
out  a  town  on  their  common  and  dispose  of  the 
lots.48  But  there  were,  of  course,  attempts  to 
open  up  the  question  of  the  rejected  claims.  In 
1818  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands  of  the 
House  reported  in  condemnation  of  the  conduct  of 
the  Kaskaskia  commissioners  in  rejecting  certain 
of  the  governors'  confirmations,49  and  recom- 
mended that  such  rejected  claims  as  were  based  on 
parole  testimony  should  be  confirmed.  This  posi- 
tion was  taken  because  of  the  many  changes  which 
had  taken  place  in  property  holdings  between  1790 
and  1813.  The  controversy  was  not,  however,  re- 
opened by  Congress.  A  few  special  claims  were 

45  Apr.  27,  1816,  ch.  101.  (This  Act  confirmed  the  claims  trans- 
mitted in  the  report  of  March  29,  1815,  but  as  the  report  was 
really  dated  November  29th,  there  was  some  question  as  to  the 
legality  of  the  confirmation.) 

*«May  15,  1820,  ch.  117. 

«May  15,  1820,  ch.  125;  P.  L.  III.,  476-486;  May  3,  1823,  ch.  68. 

«s  P.  L.  III.,  432,  May  1,  1820,  ch.         «  P.  L.  III.,  384. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES     223 

confirmed,  from  time  to  time,  but  no  other  general 
legislation  was  enacted. 

During  this  time  the  commissioners  in  the  De- 
troit district  had  been  engaged  in  the  examination 
and  confirmation  of  claims.  Under  the  Act  of 
1807  their  decision  was  to  be  final.  From  the  29th 
of  June,  1807,  until  the  22d  of  February,  1811, 
they  met  almost  daily,  although  frequently  ad- 
journing for  want  of  business.50  Favorable  deci- 
sions were  generally  recorded  as  follows :  "  And 
therefore  it  doth  appear  to  the  commissioners  that 
the  claimant  is  entitled  to  the  aforesaid  tract  of 
land,  and  that  he  have  a  certificate  thereof,  which 
certificate  shall  be  No.  . .  ;  and  that  he  cause  the 
same  to  be  surveyed,  and  a  plot  of  the  survey,  with 
the  quantity  of  land  therein  contained,  to  be  re- 
turned to  the  Register  of  the  Land  Office  at  De- 
troit." In  that  period  some  738  claims  for  confir- 
mation or  preemption  were  passed  upon.  By  act 
of  1812 51  Congress1  provided  that  patents  should 
issue  for  these  confirmed  claims  in  conformity  with 
the  general  plat  of  the  surveys  returned  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  even  though  the  surveys 
might  not,  in  every  respect,  correspond  with  the 
description  of  the  tracts  confirmed.  By  this  act, 
also,  the  preemption  of  the  "  continuation  "  of  the 
farms  on  the  Detroit  River  was  changed  into  a  do- 
nation and  the  commissioners1  were  authorized  to 
grant  certificates  to  the  proper  claimants,  provided 

BO  p.  L.  I.,  305-557.  81  Apr.  23,  1812,  ch.  62. 


224  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

they  gave  notice  before  December  1.  This  date 
was  later  extended  to  December  1,  1818.52 

It  was  soon  evident  that  a  number  of  claims  had 
not  been  presented  to  the  commissioners  within  the 
time  designated  by  the  acts  of  1807  and  1808.  At 
Green  Bay  and  Prairie  du  Chien  (now  in  Wiscon- 
sin) were  settlers  who  had  been  quite  ignorant  of 
the  steps  necessary  for  the  confirmation  of  titles. 
To  meet  these,  and  similar  cases,  Congress  revived 
the  powers  of  the  commissioners  in  the  Detroit  dis- 
trict and  instructed  them  to  pass  upon  the  claims 
for  donations  of  back  lands  along  the  Detroit 
River  and  upon  all  claims  filed  with  the  Register 
but  not  as  yet  decided.53  A  special  agent  was  to 
visit  the  settlements  at  Green  Bay  and  Prairie  du 
Chien  for  the  purpose  of  examining  their  claims. 
But  in  all  these  cases,  except  as  to  the  donations, 
the  commissioners  were  to  report  their  decisions  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  before  October  1, 
1821,  for  the  action  of  Congress.  Previously  the 
actions  of  the  commissioners  had  been  practically 
final,  no  confirmation  by  Congress  being  necessary. 

This  act  was  further  extended  three  years  later.54 
The  powers  of  the  commissioners  were  continued 
until  November  1,  1823,  and  the  claims  they  had 
recommended  were  confirmed.  In  addition,  it  was 
provided  that  persons  resident  at  Green  Bay,  Prai- 
rie du  Chien  or  in  the  Count}'-  of  Michilimackinaw, 
on  July  1,  1812,  who  continued  to  submit  to  the 

52  Mar.  3,  1817,  ch.  99.          "  May  11,  1820,  ch.  85. 
«  Feb.  21,  1823,  ch.  10. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      225 

authority  of  the  United  States,  would  be  confirmed 
in  their  holdings  up  to  640  acres.55  On  the  Detroit 
side  such  a  confirmation  had  only  been  made  in  the 
case  of  settlers  before  1796,  but  in  the  case  of  these 
outposts  the  period  was  lengthened  because  of  the 
delay  in  extending  the  authority  of  the  United 
States  to  their  region.  But  according  to  the  act  it 
was  not  sufficient  to  prove  settlement  alone,  the 
settler  must  prove  that  he  was  loyal  to  the  United 
States  during  the  War  of  1812. 

The  Commissioners  submitted  three  reports  un- 
der the  Act  of  1820  and  six  under  the  Act  of 
1823.56  All  of  these  were  laid  before  Congress  in 
1824  because  of  certain  irregularities  in  the  con- 
firmations which  would  need  Congressional  action. 
For  over  three  years  no  action  was  taken,  although 
the  necessity  of  settling  the  titles  was  realized. 
The  delay  was  in  the  main  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
commissioners  had  not  investigated  the  question  of 
the  loyalty  of  the  persons  claiming  lands  as  resi- 
dents in  1812.  There  were  other  minor  objections 
which  finally  were  waived  when  the  Act  of  1828 57 
confirmed  all  the  recommended  claims  save  those 

55  File   notice    of   claims   before   Oct.    1,    1823.      It   was   doubtful 
whether  a  confirmation  of  the  decisions  by  Congress  was  necessary. 
(P.  L.  V.,  48.) 

56  P.  L.  V.,  47-328. 

5T  Apr.  17,  1828,  ch.  28.  These  claimants  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie, 
together  with  all  persons  resident  there  on  Jan.  1,  1849,  were  per- 
mitted to  place  their  claims  before  the  officers  of  the  local  land 
office,  who  would  pass  on  their  validity  and  who  would  determine 
what  would  be  a  fair  amount  for  them  to  pay  Government  for  their 
lands  when  the  townsite  was  laid  out.  Sept.  26,  1850,  ch.  71. 


226  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

at  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  which  were  protested  as  being 
in  favor  of  supporters  of  the  British  in  1812. 

By  1828,  therefore,  the  general  legislation  af- 
fecting foreign  titles  in  the  Northwest  ended ;  from 
that  date  only  special  claims  were  laid  before  Con- 
gress. Forty  years  had  passed  since  the  Congress 
of  the  Confederation  had  provided  for  the  original 
confirmations.  To  them  it  had  seemed  an  easy  task 
to  secure  in  their  possessions  the  simple  French 
settlers  whom  the  fortunes  of  war  had  placed  un- 
der their  protection.  But  when  the  actual  confir- 
mations were  in  process  the  problem  was  compli- 
cated by  the  presence  of  masterful  Americans,  land 
speculators  and  squatters,  until  it  was  necessary 
for  the  agents  of  government  to  wade  through  "  a 
sea  of  corruption "  in  order  to  cany  out  their 
duties. 

Yet  the  experience  in  the  Northwest  was  simple 
indeed  compared  with  that  in  the  Southwest,  Loui- 
siana, Florida,  and  California.  Fundamentally  the 
problem  was  the  same,  the  endeavor  to  protect 
bona  fide  grants  which  emanated  under  a  loose  and 
careless  system.  If  France  and  Spain  and  Mexico 
had  granted  lands  in  such  a  way  that  complete 
titles  could  easily  be  secured,  if  transfers  of  lands 
had  been  carefully  recorded,  it  would  have  been  a 
fairly  simple  matter  to  confirm  the  titles  held  under 
such  grants.  But  in  the  Northwest  it  was  found 
that  few  titles  were  complete,  that  lands  had  been 
taken  up  under  mere  permission  to  settle,  and  that 
recorded  transfers  were  rare.  Then  when  the 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      227 

simple  French  settlers  came  into  contact  with  the 
shrewder  Americans  it  was  easy  to  predict  what 
would  happen.  In  Louisiana,  and  especially  in  the 
far  Southwest  and  California,  where  large  tracts 
were  granted  away  for  a  nominal  consideration, 
where  grants  were  imperfect  and  the  rewards  for 
successful  fraud  were  great,  the  problem  was  more 
acute.  In  the  Northwest  the  grants  rarely  cov- 
ered more  than  fifty  or  sixty  acres,  so  it  was  easy 
to  defeat  the  fraudulent  claims  for  large  areas. 
But  across  the  Mississippi  lands  had  attained  spec- 
ulative values  before  the  American  purchase  and 
large  tracts  had  been  granted  and  larger  ones  were 
claimed. 

There  was  bound  to  be  fraud  in  the  confirmation 
of  foreign  titles.  That  was  because  it  was  essential 
that  the  matter  be  settled  as  soon  as  possible — a 
judicial  determination  would  take  too  long.  All 
territory  acquired  since  1783  passed  into  the  public 
domain,  with  the  exception  of  the  State  of  Texas. 
It  was  necessary  that  the  settlers  be  con- 
firmed in  their  titles  as  soon  as  possible  in  order 
that  the  unclaimed  land  might  be  surveyed  and 
opened  for  settlement.  Even  before  the  surveyors 
could  begin  their  tasks  the  squatters  were  in  pos- 
session, and  every  month's  delay  complicated  the 
question  of  the  confirmations.  Squatters  would 
swear  against  old  residents,  or  more  often  swear  to 
a  long  residence  of  their  own. 

Haste  was  essential,  and  as  the  foreign  settle- 
ments were  generally  small  and  scattered,  it 


228  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

seemed  better  to  make  use  of  commissioners  to 
pass  upon  titles  than  to  wait  for  the  establishment 
of  proper  courts.  The  delay  in  securing  a  judicial 
determination  of  so  many  claims,  in  most  cases  of 
small  amount,  would  have  caused  more  harm  than 
good.  It  was  not  until  large  grants  were  involved, 
based  upon  intricate  questions  of  law,  and  higher 
courts  were  established,  that  Congress  was  willing 
to  permit  claimed  areas  to  be  withheld  from  settle- 
ment pending  a  long  judicial  controversy. 

Congress  generally  insisted  upon  passing  upon 
the  decisions'  of  the  commissioners,  and  generally 
it  was  more  lenient  than  the  commissioners  them- 
selves. Entirely  too  much  time  was  given  up  to 
the  consideration  of  these  private  land  claims. 
Much  of  the  legislation  was  concerned  with  details 
rather  than  with  general  rules.  As  a  general  thing, 
the  laws  dealing  with  these  private  land  claims 
would  commence  fairly  severely,  then  would  grow 
more  and  more  moderate,  would  apply  to  more  and 
more  classes  of  persons  never  contemplated  by  the 
original  act,  until  finally  they  would  turn  into  do- 
nation rather  than  confirmation  acts.  And  far  too 
many  acts  were  passed  merely  extending  the  pe- 
riods for  registering  claims  or  returning  surveys. 
A  few  general  acts  could  have  prevented  many 
special  ones. 

'The  effect  of  these  private  land  claims  upon  the 
general  land  system  were  many  and  important. 
First  of  all,  they  held  up  the  surveys  and  caused 
an  unauthorized  settlement  of  the  region  involved. 


CONFIRMATION    OF    FOREIGN    TITLES      229 

This  made  donation  and  preemption  laws  seem 
reasonable,  for  respectable  settlers  had  been  forced 
to  become  squatters  because  no  public  land  was 
open  to  sale.  Secondly,  in  the  days  of  the  two- 
dollar  minimum,  and  to  a  less  extent  after  that 
time,  the  presence  of  great  quantities  of  private 
land  affected  the  later  land  sales.  People  could 
buy  these  land  claims  for  a  nominal  consideration, 
and  considerable  speculation  in  them  arose.  Fi- 
nally, the  delays  in  confirming  the  titles  caused 
conservative  purchasers  to  be  wary,  and  interfered 
with  settlement  of  the  more  substantial  sort.58 

From  every  point  of  view  the  settlement  of  these 
claims  arising  from  foreign  grants  was  a  trouble- 
some one.  In  its  endeavor  to  secure  every  honest 
settler  in  his  just  claims,  Congress  passed  legisla- 
tion which  played  into  the  hands  of  the  speculators 
and  the  false-swearers,  for  it  erred  more  often 
on  the  side  of  leniency  than  on  the  side  of  strict 
justice. 

58  In  the  general  period  covered  by  this  study  the  United  States 
was  engaged  in  settling  private  land  claims  in  the  old  Southwest, 
Louisiana,  and  Florida.  Some  of  these  claims  are  still  undecided. 
It  would  be  undesirable  in  a  work  of  this  nature  to  go  into  the 
processes  of  confirmation  with  the  same  detail  as  that  given  to  the 
preceding  study. 


CHAPTER   X 

LAND    GEANTS    FOR  MILITARY   AND   NAVAL   SERVICES 

The  custom  of  granting  land  as  a  remuneration 
or  a  reward  for  military  services  was  so  ancient 
and  honorable  a  one  that  its  adoption  in  the  earli- 
est period  of  our  national  life  can  be  easily  under- 
stood. It  was  not  necessary  to  hark  back  to  the 
birth  of  feudalism  to  find  precedents  for  these 
grants.  The  individual  colonies  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  reward  services  in  Indian  or  intercolonial 
wars  by  means  of  land  grants,  and  a  precedent 
better  known  and  of  more  general  application  was 
that  set  forth  in  the  Royal  Proclamation  of  1763, 
which  provided  that  grants  of  land  should  be  made 
in  America  for  officers  and  men  who  had  served  in 
the  land  forces  there  during  the  French  and  Indian 
War,  while  reduced  officers  of  the  navy  would  re- 
ceive proportionate  grants.  The  extent  of  these 
grants  is  of  some  interest.  For  a  field  officer  five 
thousand  acres  would  be  granted,  for  a  captain 
three  thousand,  a  subaltern  or  staff  officer  would 
receive  two  thousand,  a  non-commissioned  officer 
two  hundred,  and  a  private  fifty  acres.  These 
grants  carried  with  them  ten  years'  freedom  from 
quit  rents.  Under  the  terms  of  this  proclamation 
great  tracts  were  laid  off  in  the  royal  provinces 

230 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  231 

New  York,  Virginia,  the  Carolinas  and  West 
Florida  containing  many  of  these  bounty  grants.1 
But  it  should  be  noted  that  the  Proclamation  of 
1763  granted  land  after  the  services  had  been  per- 
formed. The  warrants  could  be  located  upon  any 
unappropriated  crown  lands,  no  reserves  being  set 
apart,  and  the  grants  were  especially  favorable  to 
the  officers,  a  general  receiving  one  hundred  times 
the  share  of  a  private.2 

The  members  of  the  Second  Continental  Con- 
gress, therefore,  realized  the  value  of  land  boun- 
ties, yet  the  first  offer  was  not  made  to  volunteers 
in  the  cause  of  freedom,  but  to  foreign  deserters 
from  the  royal  standards.  The  resolution  of  Au- 
gust 14,  1776,  was  based  upon  a  recent  Act  of  Par- 
liament inviting  patriot  troops  to  desert  their 
standards.  Congress,  in  turn,  urged  the  Hessians 
and  other  foreigners  to  leave  the  service  of  the 
crown,  promising  them  citizenship  in  the  States 
and  a  grant  of  fifty  acres  of  land  "  in  some  of  these 
States." 3  The  resolves  were  translated  into  Ger- 
man and  some  were  printed  on  tobacco  wrappers 
so  that  they  might  easily  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
soldiers.4  This  first  offer  was  not  considered  sat- 
isfactory, because  no  distinction  was  made  between 
officers  and  privates,  and  as  soon  as  Congress  real- 
ized this  it  passed  another  resolve,  on  August  27, 

i  Donaldson,  473,  contains  a  survey  of  one  of  these  grants. 

*  Attempts  were  made  to  have  some  of  these  grants  satisfied  by 
the  United  States,  but  Congress  refused  to  do  so.  P.  L.  I.,  70,  165, 
583;  P.  L.  II.,  103,  121. 

a  J.  V.,  654.  *  J.  V.,  705n. 


232  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

which  corrected  the  error.  To  such  foreign  officers 
as  would  desert,  suitable  land  grants  would  be 
given,  with  additional  grants  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  soldiers  they  might  bring  over  with 
them.5  The  amount  of  land  offered  ranged  from 
one  thousand  acres  in  the  case  of  a  colonel  to  one 
hundred  acres  for  a  non-commissioned  officer.  No 
statement  was  made  in  the  resolution  as  to  where 
this  land  was  to  be  obtained.  The  Continental 
Congress  owned  no  land,  unless  it  succeeded  to  the 
crown  lands  of  His  Majesty.  Fortunately  there 
was  no  rush  of  Hessian  deserters,  so  Congress  was 
spared  any  embarrassment.  Only  one  grant,  ap- 
parently, was  ever  made  under  these  resolutions, 
and  that  not  until  1792.8  !- 

In  September,  1776,  Congress  made  an  offer 
which  was  bound  to  require  fulfillment.7  At  that 
time  provision  was  made  for  enlisting  eighty-eight 
battalions  for  the  war.  To  such  of  the  officers  and 
men  as  continued  in  service  until  the  close  of  the 
Revolution,  or  until  discharged  by  Congress,  and 
to  the  representatives  of  such  as  were  slain  by  the 
enemy,  certain  lands  were  to  be  granted.  This 
offer  was  relatively  smaller  than  that  to  the  de- 
serters. Under  it  a  colonel  would  receive  five  hun- 
dred acres,  a  lieutenant-colonel  four  hundred  and 
fifty,  a  major  four  hundred,  a  captain  three  hun- 
dred, lieutenant  two  hundred,  ensign  one  hundred 
» J.  v.,  TOT. 

6  100  acres  granted  by  act  of  March  27,  1792. 

7  Sept.  16,  1776,    J.  V.,  761. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  233 

and  fifty,  and  non-commissioned  officers  and  pri- 
vates one  hundred  acres.  The  offer  was  guaran- 
teed in  the  following  words :  "  Such  lands  to  be 
provided  by  the  United  States,  and  whatever  ex- 
pense shall  be  necessary  to  procure  such  lands,  the 
said  expense  to  be  paid  and  borne  by  the  States 
in  the  same  proportion  as  the  other  expenses  of 
the  war." 

Yet  this  provision  could  hardly  have  caused 
Congress  much  uneasiness.  If  the  Revolution 
failed,  there  would  be  no  demand  for  lands,  while 
if  it  were  successful,  surely  they  could  be  provided. 
And  there  were  some  who  believed  that  the  States 
which  had  quantities  of  vacant  lands  would  gladly 
make  good  the  Continental  warrants  in  order  to 
place  trained  veterans  upon  their  frontiers.  At 
any  rate,  Congress  had  no  occasion  to  worry  about 
land  bounties  until  the  war  came  to  an  end  in 
1783. 

In  the  meanwhile  it  had  extended  its  grants 
to  soldiers  who  had  enlisted  before  the  resolution 
of  1776;8  it  had  declared  assignments  of  bounty 
lands  to  be  invalid;9  it  had  increased  the  offers  to 
foreign  deserters ; 10  it  had  extended  the  grants  to 
general  officers,  a  major-general  becoming  entitled 
to  eleven  hundred,  and  a  brigadier-general  to  eight 
hundred  and  fifty  acres;11  and,  finally,  it  had  in- 
cluded the  hospital  department  among  those  eligi- 

»  Sept.  18,  1776.  J.  V.,  763.     10  Apr.  29,  1778.  J.  X.,  405. 
»  Sept.  20,  1776.  J.  V.,  788.     "  Aug.  12,  1780.  J.  Ill,  508. 


234  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

ble  to  receive  bounty  lands.12  No  land  was  offered 
to  chaplains.18 

These  offers  of  land  to  troops  enlisting  in  the 
Continental  Line  for  the  war  were  not  unani- 
mously endorsed  by  the  States.  The  irritating  dis- 
pute between  the  landed  and  the  landless  States 
developed  out  of  this  very  question.  Congress  had 
no  land  at  its  disposal,  and  if  the  pretensions  of 
the  States  claiming  the  Western  lands  prevailed, 
then  the  bounty  lands  would  have  to  be  secured 
from  them.  These  States  would  therefore  secure 
inhabitants  and  money  in  return  for  waste  land, 
while  the  landless  States  would  have  to  pay  their 
share  of  the  purchase  price  and  lose  their  soldier- 
settlers  as  well.  Maryland,  for  example,  proposed 
to  substitute  an  offer  of  ten  dollars  instead  of  one 
hundred  acres  of  land.14  Congress  warmly  op- 
posed this,  because  it  might  lead  to  a  general  de- 
mand for  ten  dollars  from  all  the  other  recruits, 
and  it  was  much  easier  to  offer  one  hundred  acres 
at  the  close  of  the  war  than  to  pay  ten  dollars  in 
cash  at  the  time.  Maryland  was  assured  that  the 
land  bounties  would  be  satisfied  by  Congress  and 
not  by  the  individual  States.  The  matter  was  set- 
tled as  Congress  desired,  but  Maryland  turned  her 
attention  to  the  general  question  of  the  ownership 
of  the  Western  lands. 

At  this  time,  also,  Virginia,  New  York,  Penn- 

ia  Sept.  30,  1780.     J.  III.,  531. 

is  Note   application   of   a   chaplain   who   had   served   eight   jears. 
J.  IV.,  807.  i*  J.  VI,  912.  Oct.  SO,  1776. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  235 

sylvania,  North  Carolina,  and  Georgia  offered 
land  bounties  to  soldiers  enlisting  in  the  Conti- 
nental or  State  "  Lines."  The  State  bounties  were 
much  larger  than  those  offered  by  Congress.  In 
New  York  privates  were  offered  six  hundred  acres 
and  officers  a  larger  amount.  These  lands  were 
later  laid  off  in  the  northwestern  part  of  the  State. 
Pennsylvania  offered  a  private  two  hundred  acres 
and  the  officers  an  additional  amount  up  to  two 
thousand  acres  for  a  major-general,  these  lands 
being  laid  off  in  the  northwest  corner  of  the  State. 
The  Virginia  bounties  ranged  from  one  hundred 
to  fifteen  thousand  acres,  those  of  North  Carolina 
from  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  to  twelve  thou- 
sand. These  offers  were  generally  made  only  in 
the  case  of  those  enlisting  for  three  years  or  for  the 
war. 

With  the  creation  of  the  public  domain  came  the 
ability  to  satisfy  the  land  bounties.  An  early  pro- 
posal was  the  so-called  "financier's  plan,"  intro- 
duced on  June  5,  1783,  by  Theodorick  Bland,  and 
seconded  by  Alexander  Hamilton.  This  motion 
provided  for  a  large  reserve  in  the  proposed  Vir- 
ginia cession,  which  should  be  laid  off  into  districts 
and  divided  into  townships,  and  in  which  the  land 
bounties  were  to  be  satisfied  and  all  moneys  due 
to  the  soldiers',  in  lieu  of  the  commutation  for  the 
half  pay  and  all  other  arrearages,  were  to  be  paid 
in  land  at  the  rate  of  thirty  dollars  for  every  dollar 
due.  But  as  the  Virginia  cession  had  not  been 
completed  at  this  time,  nothing  came  of  this  at- 


236  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

tempt  to  quiet  the  demands  of  the  soldiers  for  their 
land  and  money. 

It  was  in  the  same  month  that  the  officers  at 
Newburgh  petitioned  that  their  land  bounties  be 
laid  off  in  a  district  corresponding  closely  to  the 
later  State  of  Ohio,  and  Washington  warmly 
urged  their  request.  But  Congress,  still  waiting 
for  the  Virginia  cession  to  clear  up  the  title  to  the 
Northwest,  announced  that  it  could  not  at  that 
time  make  any  appropriations  of  land  for  the 
army,  no  matter  how  desirous  it  might  be  to  accom- 
modate the  officers  and  soldiers.  Yet  when  Con- 
gress had  a  free  hand  it  did  not  hasten  to  afford 
relief  to  the  veterans.  The  proposed  land  ordi- 
nance of  1784  would  have  permitted  the  receipt 
of  military  warrants  for  any  surveyed  land,  and  it 
contained  a  section  concerning  the  evidence  neces- 
sary to  secure  a  military  grant.  As  amended  and 
passed,  in  1785,  it  provided  that  before  any  of  the 
surveyed  land  was  drawn  for  sale  in  the  States, 
one-seventh  of  the  amount  was  to  be  drawn  by  lot 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Continental  Army,  and  these 
drawings  were  to  continue  as  the  surveys  were  ex- 
tended, until  the  bounty  claims  were  satisfied.  Al- 
though these  terms  gave  the  soldiers  a  slight  advan- 
tage over  the  ordinary  purchasers,  they  could 
hardly  have  been  considered  satisfactory.  The 
soldiers  must  now  wait  until  seven  ranges  north- 
west of  the  Ohio  had  been  surveyed,  whereas  they 
had  been  accustomed  to  a  system  which  gave  the 
claimant  a  warrant  and  permitted  him  to  locate  it 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  237 

wherever  unappropriated  land  might  be  found.  In 
Virginia,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  North 
Carolina  certain  military  reserves  had  already 
been  set  off,15  in  which  the  State  warrants  were 
to  be  satisfied  and  where  the  veteran  could  enter 
upon  his  lands  almost  at  once.  It  was  not  until 
1787  that  any  surveys  were  returned  to  Congress. 
In  April,  the  Secretary  of  War  was  again  author- 
ized to  draw  the  portion  for  the  army,16  but  in  Oc- 
tober, on  his  recommendation,  a  military  reserve, 
was  set  apart  in  the  Northwest.17  This  reservation 
called  for  one  million  acres  in  what  is  now  the 
State  of  Ohio,  and  an  additional  tract  in  southern 
Illinois.  But  the  worst  feature  of  the  resolution, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  soldier,  was  the  fact 
that  it  put  off  still  further  the  day  when  the  war- 
rants would  be  made  good.  Some  military  war- 
rants, however,  were  received  in  payment  of  the 
tracts  purchased  by  the  Ohio  Company  and  by 
John  Cleve  Symmes ;  in  these  cases  each  acre  called 
for  by  the  warrants  was  received  for  one  and  one- 
half  acres  of  land.18 

The  establishment  of  the  military  reserves  was 
doubtless  based  upon  the  action  of  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  and  North  Carolina,  which 
had  designated  military  tracts  when  they  had  of- 
fered the  bounties'.  As  long  as  the  warrants  were 

IB  The  Pennsylvania  reserve  was  opened  in  1786;  the  New  York 
reserve  in  1789. 

i«  J.  IV.,  739.     The  lands  drawn  were  placed  on  sale  in  1796. 

"  J.  IV.,  801. 

is  Ohio  Company,  142,900  acres ;  Symmes,  95,250  acres. 


238  THE    NATIONAL   LAND   SYSTEM 

not  transferable,  such  a  system  would  place  upon 
the  frontier  a  body  of  veterans — for  the  State  and 
national  reserves  were  all  located  on  lands  to  which 
the  Indian  title  had  not  at  the  time  been  extin- 
guished. But  in  1788  the  national  bounty  war- 
rants were  rendered  transferable,19  and  with  that 
enactment  all  reason  for  a  military  reserve  van- 
ished. The  amendment  further  provided  that  the 
warrants  could  be  located  in  the  two  reserves,  but 
only  in  combinations  amounting  to  six  miles 
square.  The  hostile  attitude  of  the  Indians  north- 
west of  the  Ohio  prevented  the  location  of  any  of 
these  warrants  during  the  last  years  of  the  Con- 
federation. 

With  the  exception  of  the  warrants  received 
from  the  Ohio  Company  and  Symmes,  none  of  the 
bounties  pledged  the  Continental  soldiers  had  been 
satisfied  when  the  Constitution  went  into  opera- 
tion.20 By  1790  the  Virginia  reserve  in  Kentucky 
had  been  entirely  appropriated  and  Congress  threw 
open  the  Virginia  reserve  in  Ohio,  but  it  was  not 
until  1796  that  effective  provision  was  made  for 
the  national  bounties — almost  twenty  years  after 
the  promises  were  made  and  about  thirteen  years 
after  the  time  when  they  could  have  been  fulfilled. 

The  Act  of  June  1,  1796,21  set  apart  a  tract  in 

i»  July  9,  1788.    J.  IV.,  833. 

20  A  special  act  of  Apr.  18,  1794,  gave  Ephraim  Kimberly  per- 
mission to  locate  his  warrant  for  300  acres  on  the  tract  which  he 
was  occupying  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Ohio.  Ebenezar  Zane  was 
permitted  to  turn  in  military  warrants  for  the  three  sections  granted 
him  in  1796.  S1  June  1,  1796,  ch.  46. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  239 

the  Northwest  Territory  corresponding  in  the 
main  with  the  Ohio  reserve  of  1788,  although  call- 
ing for  twice  as  much  land,  which  became  known 
as  the  "  United  States  Military  District."  Within 
this  district  the  land  was  to  be  laid  off  into  town- 
ships of  five  miles  square,  and  quarter-township 
corners  were  to  be  marked.  No  school  sections 
were  reserved,  although  the  salt  springs  were  set 
apart.  The  land  was  to  be  granted  only  in  quar- 
ter-township tracts,  and  for  nine  months  after  pub- 
lic notice  in  the  several  States  and  territories  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  to  register  warrants 
to  the  amount  of  one  or  more  tracts  for  any  person 
or  persons.  At  the  expiration  of  that  time  the  pri- 
ority of  the  registered  warrants  was  to  be  deter- 
mined by  lot  and  the  persons  holding  the  same 
were  to  make  their  locations  before  a  specified  date. 
A  failure  to  locate  within  the  given  time  caused 
one  to  lose  any  advantage  in  choice  of  locations. 
The  lands  in  the  reserve  were  to  be  released  on 
January  1,  1800,  "and  all  warrants  or  claims  for 
lands  on  account  of  military  services,  which  shall 
not,  before  the  day  aforesaid,  be  registered  and  lo- 
cated, shall  be  forever  barred." 

As  the  first  effective  act  regulating  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  military  bounties  this  measure  deserves 
some  little  consideration.  It  called  for  a  military 
reserve  rather  than  for  the  receipt  of  bounty  war- 
rants for  any  land  open  to  sale.  This,  again,  was 
due  to  the  State  precedents  as  well  as  to  the  re- 
serves designated  by  the  old  Congress.  There  was 


240  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

no  good  reason  why  the  soldier  should  be  forced 
to  locate  within  certain  limits,  especially  as  the 
warrants  were  transferable.  Within  the  reserve 
the  rectangular  surveys  were  to  be  made,  but  a 
change  in  the  size  of  the  townships  was  deemed 
necessary.  The  warrants  called  for  tracts  gener- 
ally of  a  hundred  acres  or  of  a  multiple  of  a  hun- 
dred. A  township  of  five  miles  square  would  con- 
tain sixteen  thousand  acres,  or  four  thousand  acres 
to  each  quarter.  These  divisions  were  better  suited 
to  satisfying  the  warrants  than  were  those  of  a  six- 
mile  square  township.  Under  the  act  of  1796  per- 
sons holding  warrants  for  less  than  four  thousand 
acres  would  have  to  combine  their  claims,  for  no 
tracts  smaller  than  a  quarter  township  were  to  be 
granted.  Adjoining  the  United  States  reserve  lay 
the  Virginia  reserve,  and  in  the  latter  the  Virginia 
system  of  indiscriminate  locations  was  in  force. 
The  litigation  which  arose  there  over  erroneous 
surveys  and  conflicting  claims  showed  conclusively 
the  value  of  the  rectangular  system  in  operation  on 
every  side. 

One  provision  in  the  Act  of  1796  soon  proved 
futile.  It  was  expected  that  all  the  warrants  would 
be  located  by  January  1,  1800,  and  that  the  un- 
appropriated tracts  could  then  be  restored  to  the 
public  domain.  But  it  was  absurd  to  think  that 
every  person  entitled  to  a  bounty  warrant  would 
secure  it  and  locate  it  in  so  short  a  period.  In  1799 
the  time  limit  was  extended  to  January  1,  1802. 

It  was  not  until  1800  that  the  priority  of  location 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  241 

was  determined  by  lot  and  when  this  was  decided 
another  drawing  took  place  to  select  fifty  quarter 
townships  for  the  satisfaction  of  outstanding  war- 
rants.22 These  tracts  and  the  unlocated  fractional 
townships  were  to  be  divided  into  hundred  acre 
lots,  and  warrants  could  be  located  upon  them  up 
to  January  1,  1802.  But  these  hundred  acre  lots- 
could  only  be  located  by  the  original  holders  of  the 
bounty  warrants,  all  assignees  would  still  have  to 
combine  to  secure  a  quarter  township.23  This  act 
also  made  provision  for  the  careless  surveys  run  in 
the  military  tract  by  granting  certificates  when 
lots  proved  to  be  at  least  fifty  acres  smaller  than 
estimated,  and  by  insisting  upon  a  payment  in  war- 
rants or  money  for  any  excess. 

After  provision  was  made  for  satisfying  the  mili- 
tary warrants  the  next  difficulty  arose  as  to  how  to 
expedite  the  process.  Congress  had  delayed  long 
in  providing  the  land  for  the  warrants,  should  it 
act  hastily  in  satisfying  them?  From  every  point  of 
view  the  warrants  should  be  redeemed  as  soon  as 
possible.  Government  should  not  retain  great  tracts 
of  unoccupied  land  in  the  new  State  of  Ohio  nor 
should  persons  be  allowed  to  delay  their  locations 
until  others  had  settled  and  improved  the  surround- 
ing region.  The  War  Office  was  destroyed  in  1801 
and  the  loss  of  the  records  caused  considerable 
trouble  to  the  officials  and  to  the  warrant  seekers. 

22  Mar.  1,  1800,  ch.   18.     The  unreserved  lands  were  attached  to 
the  Chillicothe  and  Zanesville  districts  in  1803. 

23  This  restriction  was  removed  in  1802. 


242  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

By  the  end  of  that  year  it  was  reported 24  that  war- 
rants had  issued  to  the  estimated  amount  of  1,612,- 
605  acres,  of  which  552,605  remained  unlocated. 
From  that  time  Congress  continued  to  extend  the 
period  for  obtaining  warrants  and  perfecting  loca- 
tions. Twenty-six  acts  were  passed  between  1799 
and  1864  of  this  nature,  finally  the  issue  of  war- 
rants ceased  on  June  25,  1858,  and  these  could  be 
located  at  any  time  according  to  the  Act  of  July 
2,  1864. 

Each  year  several  hundred  claims  were  presented 
and  a  small  proportion  were  approved  and  war- 
rants were  issued.  From  1803  to  November,  1824, 
some  1070  warrants  for  156,500  acres  were  issued.25 
In  1825  it  was  reported  that  there  were  fifty-nine 
warrants  in  the  war  office  which  had  been  issued 
under  Generals  Knox  and  Dearborn,  as  Secretary 
of  War,  and  which  had  not  been  called  for.28  In 
order  to  expedite  the  issue  of  warrants  the  Judi- 
ciary Committee  of  the  Senate  recommended  in 
1828  that  a  list  of  the  officers  and  soldiers  who  had 
not  applied  for  their  warrant  be  printed.27  This 
was  done,  and  the  list  may  be  found  in  the  State 
Papers',  as  well  as  the  list  of  unclaimed  warrants. 
A  similar  resolution  in  the  House  was  defeated  on 
the  ground  that  such  a  publication  would  incite 
speculation  in  bounty  lands. 

It  was  not  until  1830  that  the  military  reserve  in 
Ohio  was  finally  given  up.  In  March  of  that  year 

24  p.  L.  I.,  114.  ze  pt  L.  IV.,  428. 

25  P.  L.  IV.,  SO.  27  p.  L.  V.,  360. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  243 

it  appeared  that  only  35,627  acres  remained  un- 
located  among  the  fifty  quarter  townships,  while  it 
was  evident  that  unlocated  warrants  would  more 
than  equal  that  amount.28  An  act  was  passed 
appropriating  scrip,  receivable  for  lands  in  Ohio, 
Indiana  and  Illinois,  for  the  satisfaction  of  both  the 
United  States  and  the  Virginia  military  warrants.29 
In  1832  the  unlocated  lots  in  the  United  States 
reserve  in  Ohio,  some  31,900  acres,  were  ordered  to 
be  sold.30  The  next  year  the  certificates  were  made 
receivable  for  any  public  land  open  to  private 
entry,31  and  on  September  1,  1835,  the  exchange  of 
warrants  for  scrip  ceased.32  The  issue  of  warrants 
continued  until  January  1,  1840,  so  that  between 
1835  and  1840  it  was  possible  to  secure  a  warrant 
without  the  right  to  satisfy  it.  Between  1840  and 
1842  no  warrants  could  be  issued — as  had  also  been 
the  case  between  1830  and  1832 — but  on  July  27, 
1842,  an  act  was  passed  which  continued  the  issue 
of  warrants  for  five  years  and  permitted  all  out- 
standing warrants  to  be  located  on  any  land  open 
to  private  entry,  but  the  certificates  of  location 
were  not  assignable  and  the  patents  were  to  issue 
to  the  person  originally  entitled  to  the  bounty  or 
to  his  heirs  or  legal  representatives.  As  has  been 
pointed  out  the  issue  of  revolutionary  warrants  was 
again  twice  extended  and  the  right  to  locate  them 
was  granted  without  limit  of  time. 

28  R  L.  VI.,  167.  so  July  3,  1832,  ch.  163. 

ae  May  30,  1830,  ch.  215.  «i  Mar.  2,  1833,  ch.  94. 

32  Mar.  3,  1835,  ch.  30.     Certificates  for  97,750  acres  issued  up  to 
Nov.  15,  1834.     P.  L.  VII.,  327. 


244  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

Until  1855  Congress  was  concerned  with  the 
satisfaction  of  the  pledges  of  the  Continental  Con- 
gress, but  in  that  year  and  in  1856  it  passed  acts 
which  rewarded  services  in  the  Revolution  hitherto 
unrecognized.  This  increase  in  the  Revolutionary 
bounties  can  best  be  discussed  in  connection  with 
the  later  bounty  legislation. 

In  satisfaction  of  the  original  Revolutionary 
bounty  pledges  the  United  States  issued  land  war- 
rants for  2,666,080  acres  prior  to  July  1,  1907.  In 
addition  to  this  was  a  small  amount  issued  under 
the  acts  of  1855  and  1856  as  well  as  certain  war- 
rants issued  under  special  acts  of  Congress.  In  any 
case  the  total  was  somewhat  more  than  half  as 
much  as  Congress  had  been  called  upon  to  appro- 
priate for  the  troops  of  Virginia,  in  addition  to  the 
lands  granted  them  in  Kentucky.  Land  grants 
arising  out  of  Revolutionary  services  were  also 
made  to  General  Lafayette  and  to  certain  Cana- 
dian refugees,  but  as  these  were  special  grants  they 
have  been  discussed  in  another  chapter. 

It  might  be  an  interesting  study  to  determine 
how  many  of  these  warrants  were  located  by  the 
original  holders  and  to  study,  if  possible,  the  in- 
fluence of  these  veterans  on  the  frontier.  A  great 
proportion  of  the  warrants,  however,  were  assigned 
and  many  of  them  fell  into  the  hands  of  speculators, 
and  even  to-day  it  is  possible  to  take  up  land  under 
a  Revolutionary  warrant  issued  before  1858  or  to 
secure  a  warrant  for  Revolutionary  services,  under 
the  Act  of  1855.  During  the  existence  of  the  mili- 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  245 

tary  reserve  the  presence  of  so  much  cheap  land  in 
Ohio  affected  the  sales  of  public  lands  at  the  neigh- 
boring land  offices.  In  that  district  the  bounty 
lands  did  not  receive  the  exemption  from  taxation 
for  a  term  of  years  which  applied  to  lands  sold  by 
the  United  States  or  to  lands  in  the  later  military 
reserves.  The  lack  of  this  provision  caused  many 
patented  tracts  to  be  sold  for  taxes  and  made  per- 
sons delay  their  location  until  they  were  ready 
either  to  occupy  or  dispose  of  their  land. 

The  experience  of  Congress  with  the  Revolution- 
ary bounty  lands  should  have  taught  it  the  weak- 
ness of  most  of  the  arguments  in  favor  of  land 
grants  for  military  service.  The  soldiers,  in  general, 
returned  to  their  own  homes  and  accustomed  habits 
and  few  of  them  took  any  interest  in  lands  in  the 
wilderness  except  to  assign  their  warrant,  for  a 
nominal  consideration,  to  some  restless  settler  or 
visionary  speculator.  The  military  reserve,  there- 
fore, instead  of  being  peopled  with  hardy  veterans 
contained  large  unoccupied  tracts,  while  its  cheap 
lands  impaired  the  sales  of  the  public  domain.  The 
only  effective  argument  in  favor  of  granting  land 
was  that  it  was  a  cheap  way  to  pay  bounties,  yet 
this  argument  was  economically  untenable.  The 
nation  would  have  been  the  gainer  could  it  have 
paid  cash  for  its  bounties  and  then  have  permitted 
the  public  lands  to  be  uniformly  disposed  of.  The 
valuable  pioneer  would  have  crossed  the  mountains 
without  the  incentive  of  a  land  grant,  and  each  sol- 
dier would  have  received  the  entire  value  of  his 


246  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

bounty,  which  did  not  follow  when  he  assigned  his 
land  warrant. 

Before  these  ideas  could  receive  general  recogni- 
tion the  prospect  of  a  second  war  with  Great 
Britain  caused  a  renewal  of  the  system  of  land 
bounties.  In  1798,  when  trouble  with  France 
caused  a  considerable  increase  in  the  standing  army, 
no  land  bounties  were  offered,  but  in  1811  the 
influence  of  the  West  was  more  keenly  felt  in  Con- 
gress and  western  members  uniformly  supported 
any  measure  which  even  indirectly  tended  to  the 
peopling  of  their  section.  The  Act  of  December 
24,  1811,  was  designed  to  complete  the  existing 
military  establishment,  and  it  offered  a  bounty  of 
sixteen  dollars  on  enlistment  for  a  term  of  five 
years  while  on  an  honorable  discharge  the  soldier 
was  entitled  to  three  months'  pay  and  a  quarter- 
section  of  land.  Should  he  die  or  be  killed  in  serv- 
ice his  heirs  or  legal  representatives  would  receive 
the  bounty  in  cash  and  land.  Similar  terms  were 
inserted  in  the  Act  of  January  11,  1812,  raising  an 
additional  force,  while  the  Act  of  February  6,  only 
made  provision  for  the  heirs,  as  the  service  of  the 
volunteers  under  this  act  was  only  for  twelve 
months.  In  1813  and  1814  similar  bounties  were 
offered  troops  who  might  enlist  for  five  years  or 
for  the  war,33  and  in  December,  1814,34  the  bounty 
was  doubled  for  all  enlistments  after  that  act,  but 
state  troops  and  volunteers  accepted  under  the  later 

33  July  5,  1813,  ch.  4;  Jan.  28,  1814,  ch.  9;  Feb.  10,  1814,  ch.  10; 
Feb.  24,  1814,  ch.  16.  3*  Dec.  10,  1814,  ch.  10. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  247 

act  of  January  27,  1815,  were  to  receive  only  a 
quarter  section. 

Some  general  provisions  of  these  bounty  offers 
should  be  noted.  The  bounty  lands  were  only 
offered  to  "  effective  able-bodied  men  "  between  the 
ages  of  eighteen  and  forty-five,  and  only  privates 
and  non-commissioned  officers  could  receive  them. 
If  the  Revolutionary  bounties  were  more  democra- 
tic than  those  offered  by  the  Proclamation  of  1763 
and  in  proportion  granted  far  more  land  to  pri- 
vates than  to  officers,  then  these  bounties  for  the 
Second  War  registered  the  further  development  of 
American  democracy.  No  officer  could  receive 
bounty  lands.  If  a  private  should  receive  a  com- 
mission for  meritorious  service  he  must  give  up 
all  thought  of  a  quarter  section  in  the  distant  west. 
The  theory,  of  course,  was  that  the  officers  received 
ample  remuneration  in  pay  and  incidentals  and  that 
they  would  not  need  a  tract  of  land  in  which  to 
start  life  anew,  nor  would  a  land  offer  be  necessary 
to  secure  a  complement  of  officers.  Another  fea- 
ture, open  to  even  more  criticism  but  fully  as 
proper,  was  the  restriction  of  the  bounty  to  troops 
serving  under  national  authority,  yet  immediate 
demands  were  made  that  the  militia  and  irregular 
volunteers  should  receive  bounties.  Of  course  the 
doubling  of  the  bounty  in  the  last  months  of  the 
war  was  manifestly  unjust  to  the  veteran  troops, 
although  it  was  doubtless  necessary  in  order  to 
secure  recruits. 

When  Congress  made  provision  for  satisfying 


248  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

these  bounty  warrants  it  retained  the  system  of 
military  districts.  In  1812  the  President  was 
authorized 35  to  have  surveyed  a  quantity  of  public 
land  "fit  for  cultivation,  not  otherwise  appropri- 
ated, and  to  which  the  Indian  title  is  extinguished." 
Six  million  acres  were  to  be  set  apart  in  equal  por- 
tions in  the  territories  of  Michigan,  Illinois,  and 
Louisiana.  These  lands  were  to  be  divided  into 
quarter  sections,  and  salt  springs,  lead  mines,  and 
school  sections  were  to  be  reserved.  The  war- 
rants must  be  applied  for  within  five  years  after  a 
person  became  entitled  to  one,36  then  he  must  des- 
ignate the  territory  in  which  he  preferred  to  locate 
and  the  quarter  section  would  be  drawn  by  lot. 
This  act  contained  strict  provisions  intended  to 
protect  the  soldiers  in  their  lands.  Warrants  were 
not  assignable  and  the  land  could  not  be  transferred 
in  any  manner  until  the  patent  issued.  "  All  sales, 
mortgages,  contracts,  or  agreements,  of  any  nature 
whatever,  made  prior  thereto,  for  the  purpose,  or 
with  intent  of  alienating,  pledging  or  mortgaging 
any  such  claim,  are  hereby  declared  and  shall  be 
held  null  and  void;  nor  shall  any  tract  of  land, 
granted  as  aforesaid,  be  liable  to  be  taken  in  execu- 
tion or  sold  on  account  of  any  such  sale,  mortgage, 
contract  or  agreement,  or  on  account  of  any  debt 
contracted  prior  to  the  date  of  the  patent,  either 
by  the  person  originally  entitled  to  the  land  or  by 

SB  May  6,  1812,  ch.  77. 

"This  time  limit  was  extended  by  ten  acts  until  the  terms  were 
similar  to  those  for  Revolutionary  warrants. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  249 

his  heirs  or  legal  representatives,  or  by  virtue  of 
any  process,  or  suit  at  law,  or  judgment  of  court 
against  a  person  entitled  to  receive  his  patent  as 
aforesaid." 

This  act  carried  with  it  no  appropriation  to  pay 
for  the  surveys  of  the  military  districts.37  It  was 
not  until  1815  that  money  was  voted  for  that  pur- 
pose and  the  next  year  President  Madison  reported 
to  Congress  that  the  lands  set  apart  in  Michigan 
were  covered  with  lakes  and  swamps  and  were  un- 
fit for  cultivation,  and  he  recommended  that  other 
reserves  be  made.38  At  the  same  time  the  Adjutant- 
General  estimated  that  68,500  men  were  entitled  to 
bounty,  which  at  160  acres  each,  would  amount  to 
10,960,000  acres.  Congress  acted  on  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  President  and  in  lieu  of  the  Michigan 
lands  set  apart  an  additional  1,500,000  acres  in 
Illinois  and  500,000  acres  in  Missouri  Territory 
north  of  the  Missouri  River.39  The  lands  reserved 
in  Louisiana  Territory  by  the  act  of  1812  lay  be- 
tween the  St.  Francis  and  the  Arkansas  rivers  and 
were  in  the  later  state  of  Arkansas. 

The  war  was  scarcely  over  than  attempts  were 
made  to  widen  the  scope  of  the  bounty  laws.  In 
1815  a  proposition  was  discussed  in  favor  of  grant- 

«7  Annals,    1814-15.     1153,   1172. 

38  Governor  Cass,  of   Michigan   Territory,  protested   against   this 
erroneous  report  of  the  surveyors.  A.  C.  McLaughlin,  in  Papers  of 
the  American  Historical  Association,  III,  67-83. 

39  April  29,  1816,  ch.  184.     By  the  act  of  April  16,  1816,  ch.  55, 
an  additional  two  million  acres  were  set  apart,  but  this  reserve  was 
never  made. 


250  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

ing  bounties  to  militia,40  while  a  warm  debate  arose 
over  a  resolution  proposing  grants  to  deserters 
from  the  British  armies.41  The  next  year  Congress- 
passed  one  of  those  ill  considered  acts  which  con- 
tinually crept  into  the  statutes.  This  act  was  for 
the  benefit  of  certain  Canadian  volunteers  who, 
although  citizens  of  the  United  States,  had  been 
residents  of  Canada  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  and 
had  volunteered  in  the  American  forces.  As  a 
result  of  this  patriotic  action  they  had,  of  course, 
lost  their  possessions  in  Canada  and  it  was  held 
that  the  nation  should  make  some  compensation  for 
such  sacrifices — the  compensation  to  be  in  land  be- 
cause there  was  more  land  than  money  available. 
The  bill  as  introduced  proposed  to  make  the  grant 
in  proportion  to  the  loss  suffered,  but  this  called  forth 
amendments  to  include  all  our  own  residents  who 
had  lost  property  during  the  two  wars  with  Great 
Britain.  Then  the  bill  was  amended  to  offer  grants 
in  proportion  to  the  rank  held  in  the  army,  and 
an  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  to  include  all 
the  inhabitants  of  Canada  who  took  up  arms  for 
the  United  States1.  It  was  at  once  pointed  out  that 
this  amendment  meant  the  giving  of  land  to  Cana- 
dian officers  when  we  denied  it  to  our  own,  and 
others  showed  that  the  bill,  instead  of  making  com- 
pensation for  property  losses,  simply  rewarded  mili- 
tary service,  and  a  private  might  have  lost  more 
property  than  a  colonel. 

As  finally  passed  the  act  offered  land  grants  to 

40 Annals,    1814-5,   p.    1189.  «  P.   326-333. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  251 

citizens  of  the  United  States  who,  though  being 
inhabitants  of  Canada,  joined  our  armies  as  volun- 
teers.42 The  grants  were  graded  as  follows,  to  a 
colonel,  960  acres;  major,  800  acres;  captain,  640; 
subaltern,  480;  non-commissioned  officer,  musician, 
or  private,  320  acres.  These  lands  were  to  be  located 
in  Indiana  Territory.  The  act  contained  no  restric- 
tion as  to  the  nature  or  length  of  service,  nor  was 
the  assignment  of  warrants  prohibited.  It  was  at 
the  next  session  that  Congress  realized  its  error. 
Then  a  select  committee  of  the  House  reported  that 
the  Act  of  1816  was  vague  and  defective,  no  speci- 
fic terms  of  service  were  required  and  frauds  had 
been  attempted.43  "  In  referring  to  the  muster  roll 
of  the  corps  called  Canadian  volunteers,  it  appears 
to  have  consisted  of  nearly  the  full  number  of  field 
and  staff  officers  for  a  regiment,  with  a  very  small 
number  of  privates — not  at  any  time  exceeding 
thirty-eight  mustered  as  present — and  that  very 
little  service  could  have  been  rendered  by  them  to 
the  government."  Congress  at  once  tried  to  cor- 
rect its  error.44  It  required  six  months  service  in 
some  corps  of  the  United  States  army,  it  cut  the 
bounties  in  half,  and  required  that  in  the  future 
they  should  be  located  on  land  that  had  been 
offered  for  sale.  These  acts  remained  in  force  but 
one  year,  and  under  them  some  76,592  acres  of 
land  were  granted.45 

42  March   5,   1816,  ch.  25.  "Annals,  1816-7,  p.  463. 

«  March  3,  1817,  ch.  106. 

45  Donaldson,  236.     In  1836,  Abraham  Forbes,  a  spy,  received  320 
acres  as  a  Canadian  volunteer.     P.  L.  VIII.,  342. 


252  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

At  the  very  session  in  which  the  first  of  these  acts 
was  passed  Congress  twice  refused  to  grant  land  to 
our  own  officers.  The  bill  making  further  provision 
for  military  services  during  the  late  war  contained 
grants  for  disbanded  officers  of  the  regular  army, 
but  after  a  long  debate  in  the  House  this  provision 
was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  seventy-four  to  sixty.48 
Another  bill  designed  to  grant  land  to  disbanded 
officers  of  the  regular  army  who  had  been  wounded 
in  battle  and  to  officers  and  privates  of  the  militia 
and  volunteers  who  had  been  wounded,  was  also 
rejected.  In  such  cases  a  grant  of  money  would 
doubtless  have  been  more  acceptable.  Year  after 
year  petitions  were  presented  to  Congress  on  behalf 
of  the  commissioned  officers  of  the  War  of  1812, 
but  not  until  1850  did  they  receive  any  land  boun- 
ties.47 

The 'first  extension  of  the  terms  of  the  bounty 
acts  for  the  War  of  1812  was  based  in  large  meas- 
ure upon  a  very  striking  petition.  Abigail  O'Flyng 
presented  the  following  facts  to  the  consideration 
of  Congress:  that  her  husband  had  served  in  the 
late  war,  but  as  he  was  over  forty-five  years  of  age 
he  could  receive  no  bounty  lands ;  her  youngest  son 
had  served,  but  he  had  been  under  eighteen;  two 
other  sons  had  died  in  the  service,  but  one  had  been 
promoted  to  a  lieutenantcy  and  the  other  had  been 
promoted  to  the  rank  of  ensign.48  Altogether  this 

*«  Annals,  1815-6,  979-996. 

47  Petitions  were  presented  in  1815,  1817,  1826,  1827,  1828,  1830, 
1831,  etc.  P.  L.  VI.,  303-6.  «  Annals,  1815-6,  p.  846. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  253 

family,  with  so  notable  a  record  for  patriotism,  had 
received  no  part  of  the  land  bounty  of  the  nation. 
Congress  made  amends,  however,  by  granting  Abi- 
gail and  her  husband  four  hundred  and  eighty  acres 
of  land  and  half  pay  for  five  years  for  each  of  their 
deceased  sons,  while  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres 
were  granted  to  the  youngest  son.49 

The  general  act  which  was  passed  at  this  session 
covered  the  points  raised  in  Abigail  O'Flyng's 
petition.50  Hereafter  soldiers  under  eighteen  and 
over  forty-five  years  of  age  and  those  who  might 
have  been  promoted  to  be  commissioned  officers 
were  to  receive  the  land  bounty,  moreover  children 
under  sixteen,  heirs  of  persons  entitled  to  warrants, 
might  surrender  them  for  five  years  half  pay.51 

This  bill  was  reported  on  January  16th  and  Mrs. 
O'Flyng's  petition  was  presented  on  February  1st, 
but  the  bill  was  not  passed  for  several  months  and 
it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  petition, 
which  pointed  out  so  convincingly  the  very  defects 
in  the  former  legislation,  must  have  had  consider- 
able influence. 

From  this  time  until  1842  no  changes  were  made 
in  the  laws  governing  bounty  lands  for  services  in 
the  second  war  with  Great  Britain  although  many 
attempts  were  made  to  extend  the  bounty  to  com- 
missioned officers,  to  the  various  bodies  of  volun- 
teers, militia,  and  rangers  which  served  in  the  states 
or  on  the  frontiers,  and  even  to  the  masters  of 

«  April   24,    1816.  80  April    16,    1816,    ch.    55. 

ci  Two  other  acts  continued  this  privilege  to  March  3,  1822. 


254  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

slaves  who  had  enlisted.82  After  1826  several  acts 
permitted  persons  who  had  drawn  land  unfit  for 
cultivation  to  select  lieu  land,53  and  during  the 
period  two  measures  were  discussed  which  would 
have  favored  the  ex-soldiers.  In  1818  a  bill  for  the 
commutation  of  land  warrants  at  one  dollar  an  acre 
came  within  two  votes  of  passing  in  the  House.54 
This  measure  was  advocated  because  it  would  free 
the  soldiers  from  the  speculators  and  also  protect 
the  general  land  system,  but  the  expense  involved 
apparently  defeated  the  proposal.  Two  years  later 
an  effort  was  made  to  have  scrip  issue  instead  of 
warrants.  Cook,  of  Illinois,  presented  the  resolu- 
tion.55 He  maintained  that  the  reserves  were  in- 
expedient, that  they  were  so  remote  that  the  sol- 
diers would  not  move  to  them  and  in  their  poverty 
were  forced  to  sell  their  lands  to  speculators.  He 
believed  a  soldier  would  prefer  eighty  acres  in  scrip, 
locatable  anywhere  in  the  public  domain,  to  one 
hundred  and  sixty  acres  in  the  reserves.  Moreover 
the  reserves  were  turning  a  large  part  of  Illinois 
into  a  wilderness,  and  he  held  that  "the  bounty  of 
the  government,  owing  to  the  manner  of  conferring 
it,  has  thus  done  but  little  good  to  the  soldier  and 
established  a  nuisance  in  that  flourishing  state." 
The  House  refused  to  consider  the  resolution.  At 
the  next  session  a  House  committee  favored  the 
proposal  to  give  scrip  for  half  the  amount  of  the 
bounty,  for  the  reasons  Cook  had  urged.58  It  was 

us  P.   L.  VI.,  644,  969.     P.   L.  VII.,  572. 

63  Acts  of  1826,  1830,  1840,  1853.     "  Annals,    1819-20,    p.    1489. 

6*  Annals,    1817-8,    p.    816.  56  p.  L.  III.,  493. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  255 

not,  however,  until  1842,  that  warrants  could  be 
located  upon  any  of  the  public  lands  subject  to 
private  entry.67 

After  the  military  districts  were  abandoned  it 
was  still  advantageous  for  the  soldier  to  locate  in 
Illinois,  Missouri,  Arkansas  or  Michigan  because 
by  the  compacts  entered  into  between  these  states 
and  the  nation  they  agreed  to  exempt  bounty  lands 
from  all  taxation  for  three  years  after  the  date  of 
the  patents.  This  exemption  only  applied  to  the 
patentees  and  their  heirs. 

With  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  with  Mexico 
in  1846  Congress  once  more  offered  land  as  a 
bounty  for  services  in  our  forces.  But  the  experi- 
ence of  the  past  years  had  been  of  some  value  and 
the  new  offer58  differed  materially  from  the  old 
ones.  It  applied  to  non-commissioned  officers, 
musicians  and  privates:  those  who  served  twelve 
months  or  more  were  to  receive  one  hundred  and 
sixty  acres  and  those  serving  a  shorter  period  were 
to  receive  forty  acres.  The  principle  of  commuta- 
tion was  also  introduced,  for  the  soldiers  might  ex- 
change their  warrants  for  six  per  cent,  scrip  re- 
ceiving one  hundred  or  twenty-five  dollars  in  either 
of  the  above  cases.  No  military  districts  were  set 
apart,  for  this  method  had  been  abandoned.  The 
warrants  were  unassignable  and  were  only  to  issue, 
in  the  case  of  volunteers,  to  such  as  were  actually 
marched  to  the  seat  of  war.  A  second  act  was 

57  July   27,   1842.  "  Feb.  11,  1847,  ch.  8. 


256  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

required  to  provide  bounties  for  privates  and  non- 
commissioned officers  who  might  later  obtain  com- 
missions.59 Congress  wisely  refrained  from  setting 
any  time  limit  upon  securing  warrants  and  making 
locations,  for  it  had  been  forced  repeatedly  in  the 
past  to  extend  these  periods. 

From  this  time  bounty  land  legislation  was  not 
concerned  with  the  separate  wars  but  tended 
toward  inclusiveness,  each  great  act  covering  sev- 
eral wars.  The  first  of  these  acts,  that  of  1850, 
was  of  wide  application.60  It  offered  land  bounties 
to  officers  and  privates,  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  whether  of  the  regulars,  volunteers, 
rangers,  or  militia,  who  served  in  the  War  of  1812, 
or  in  any  of  the  Indian  wars  since  1790;  to  com- 
missoned  officers  in  the  war  with  Mexico;  and  to 
the  widow  or  minor  children  of  the  above.  To  those 
who  engaged  to  serve  twelve  months  or  for  the  war, 
and  actually  served  nine  months,  one  hundred  and 
sixty  acres  were  granted;  those  engaged  for  six 
months  who  served  four  months,  were  to  receive 
forty  acres.  No  grants  were  to  be  made  to  deserters, 
or  to  those  who  had  already  received  bounty  lands, 
and  the  warrants  were  not  assignable. 

This  act  met  most  of  the  demands  of  the  past 
fifty  years,  yet  its  terms  were  still  further  en- 
larged.81 In  1852  all  bounty  land  warrants  issued 
or  to  be  issued  were  made  assignable,  and  soldiers 
of  the  state  militia  or  volunteers  serving  since  the 

B»May  27,  1848,  ch.  49.  «<>Sept.  28,  1850,  ch.  85. 

ei  March  22,    1852,   ch.    19. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  257 

commencement  of  the  War  of  1812,  whose  services 
have  been  paid  for  by  the  United  States,  were 
offered  bounty  lands  as  under  the  Act  of  1850.  In 
computing  the  length  of  service  an  allowance  of 
one  day  was  made  for  every  twenty  miles  marched 
to  the  place  of  muster  or  from  the  place  of  dis- 
charge, provided  such  march  was  under  proper 
orders. 

More  extensive  in  its  operations  than  the  Act  of 
1850  was  that  of  1855.62  This  act  apparently 
covered  every  possible  phase  of  military  service 
under  the  national  government.  It  applied  to  all 
classes  of  officers  and  men  in  the  army  and  navy  in 
any  war  since  1790 — militia,  volunteers  and  the 
troops  of  any  state  or  territory  called  into  service 
and  paid  for  by  the  United  States,  wagon-masters, 
teamsters  and  chaplains.  Officers  and  men  of  the 
Revolutionary  army  were  included,  as  were  the  vol- 
unteers at  King's  Mountain  (1780),  at  Nickojack 
"  against  the  confederated  savages  of  the  South  " 
(1794) ,  at  Plattsburg  and  at  Lewistown,  Delaware, 
in  the  War  of  1812.  To  secure  this  bounty  of  one 
hundred  and  sixty  acres,  a  service  of  fourteen 
days  or  participation  in  a  battle  was  necessary. 
Widows  and  minor  children  of  deceased  claimants 
were  entitled  to  the  bounty  lands  and  Indians 
might  share  the  benefits  of  the  act.63  The  next  year 
this  act  was  further  extended  to  include  the  officers 
and  men  of  the  Revolutionary  navy  and  volunteers 

62  March  3,  1855,  ch.  207. 

«3  These  warrants  were  made  assignable  in  1858. 


258  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

who  had  served  fourteen  days  in  any  of  the  speci- 
fied wars  whether  regularly  mustered  into  the  serv- 
ice of  the  United  States  or  not.64  Where  a  war- 
rant had  already  issued  for  less  than  one  hundred 
and  sixty  acres  the  balance  might  now  be  obtained. 
Where  no  written  evidence  of  service  existed  parol 
evidence  might  be  accepted,  although  even  if  a  war- 
rant had  formerly  been  granted  the  Commissioner 
of  Pensions  might  demand  further  evidence  of  the 
services  in  question. 

In  1857  provision  was  made  for  the  officers  and 
soldiers  of  Major  David  Bailey's  battalion  of  Cook 
County,  Illinois,  volunteers,  who  served  in  Black 
Hawk's  War. 

A  study  of  the  bounty  land  legislation  since  1850 
leads  one  to  believe  either  that  Congress  had  be- 
come wonderfully  appreciative  of  military  service 
or  else  had  become  magnificently  lavish  in  its  grants 
of  the  public  domain.  One  hundred  and  sixty 
acres  of  land  for  fourteen  days'  service — surely  that 
showed  appreciation  of  militant  patriotism.  And 
yet  the  act  was  but  the  culmination  of  a  series  of 
bounty  grants.  It  placed  every  possible  service  in 
the  past  upon  a  common  footing,  and  left  the  way 
open  for  new  legislation  in  the  future.  These  acts- 
wiped  out  many  of  the  inequalities  of  the  old  laws. 
Officers  now  received  lands,  although  not  in  the 
large  quantities  granted  to  those  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. The  navy  was  placed  upon  the  same  terms 

o*  May  14,  1856,  ch.  28. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  259 

as  the  land  forces,  although  in  the  case  of  the 
Revolutionary  officers  they  failed  to  fare  as  well  as 
their  comrades  ashore.  And  then  the  various  bodies 
of  militia,  volunteers,  and  rangers,  which  performed 
feats  of  varying  importance,  were  uniformly  re- 
warded. 

As  to  the  short  term  of  service  required  for  a 
grant,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  Congress  could  have 
drawn  the  line.  The  volunteers  who  flocked  to  the 
support  of  Jackson  at  New  Orleans  accomplished 
more  than  did  many  of  the  troops  who  served  for 
years  along  the  northern  border,65  and  the  fron- 
tiersmen who  crossed  a  wilderness  to  crush  the  raid- 
ers at  King's  Mountain  were  of  invaluable  assist- 
ance to  the  young  republic.  The  whole  theory  of 
land  bounties  had  gradually  changed.  When  first 
used  by  our  government  they  were  designed  to 
secure  enlistment  for  the  entire  war  in  order  to 
build  up  a  permanent  force,  but  gradually  the  idea 
developed  that  they  were  more  of  a  reward  for  serv- 
ices rendered  and  in  that  case  the  men  who  picked 
up  their  muskets  for  a  few  days  of  critical  fighting 
were  more  deserving  than  the  standing  forces  which 
lay  in  garrison  during  much  of  their  period  of  en- 
listment. So  if  the  acts  favored  many  who  deserved 
little  of  the  nation,  they  were  also  of  service  to  the 
men  who,  fighting  the  daily  battles  of  the  frontier, 
were  unable  to  enlist  with  regular  troops  for  the 
terms  prescribed  by  the  earlier  bounty  laws. 

«5  Petition  of  Scale's  Rifle  Company,  at  New  Orleans,  Dec.  23, 
to  Jan.  8,  1814.  P.  L.  VIII.,  328. 


260  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

Under  the  Act  of  1856,  which  authorized  the 
issue  of  warrants  to  satisfy  any  deficiency  in  pre- 
vious grants,  new  sizes  of  warrants  were  issued.  An 
ensign  in  the  Revolution  had  received  one  hundred 
and  fifty  acres,  he  now  was  entitled  to  a  warrant 
for  ten  acres.  A  Revolutionary  private  had  received 
one  hundred  acres,  sixty  acres  were  now  his  due. 
Certain  soldiers  of  the  Mexican  War  had  received 
forty  acres,  now  one  hundred  and  twenty  in  addi- 
tion were  forthcoming.  Almost  as  much  land  was 
granted  under  the  Act  of  1855  as  under  all  other 
national  bounty  acts. 

Military  services  since  March  3,  1855,  have  not 
been  rewarded  with  bounty  lands.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Civil  War  the  rush  of  volunteers 
made  land  bounties  unnecessary  and  in  1862  the 
Homestead  Law  gave  to  anyone  a  home  who  might 
seek  one  and  so  rendered  that  argument  valueless. 
When  troops  were  really  needed  a  system  of  cash 
bounties  was  used,  better  in  almost  every  way  than 
the  land  bounties  of  the  earlier  period. 

The  total  amount  of  land  granted  for  military 
services  has  already  reached  about  seventy  million 
acres.  The  extent  of  the  grants  has  been  due  to 
the  great  wealth  of  land  of  which  Congress  has 
been  the  trustee.  And  yet  the  giving  of  land  was 
more  expensive  than  it  appeared.  These  millions 
of  acres  were  surveyed  at  the  expense  of  the  nation 
and  the  land  revenue  suffered  for  every  warrant 
issued.  It  would  have  been  better  to  have  given 
bounties  in  cash  rather  than  in  lands,  the  soldier 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    SERVICES  261 

would  have  been  freed  from  the  speculator  and  the 
general  system  of  land  sales  would  not  have  come 
into  competition  with  bounty  lands  which  generally 
sold  below  the  minimum  price.  Neither  the  soldier 
nor  the  nation  received  the  maximum  of  benefit 
from  the  system. 


BOUNTY  LAND  WARRANTS  ISSUED   AND   LOCATED 
TO  JUNE  30,  1907 

WARRANTS    ISSUED.  WARRANTS    LOCATED. 

Number  Acres  Number  Acres 
War  of  the  Revolution,  acts 

prior   to    1800    16,663  2,666,080 

War  of   1812,   acts  prior  to 

1850: 

160  acres  28,085  4,493,600  27,979  4,476,740 

320  acres  1,101  352,320  1,034  330,880 

29,186  4,845,920  29,013  4,807,520 

Act  of  1847: 

160  acres 80,689  12,910,240  79,202  12,672,320 

40  acres  7,585  303,400  7,105  284,200 

88,274  13,213,640  86,307  12,956,520 

Act  of  1850: 

160  acres  27,450  4,392,000  26,913  4,306,080 

80  acres  57,717  4,617,360  56,476  4,518,080 

40  acres  103,978  4,159,120  101,001  4,040,040 

189,145  13,168,480  184,390  12,864,200 

Act  of  1852: 

160    acres     1,223  195,680  1,196  191,360 

80    acres     1,699  135,920  1,668  133,440 

40    acres    9,070  362,800  8,895  355,800 

11,992  694,400  11,759  680,600 


262  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

Act   of   1855: 

160    acres     115,616  18,458,560  111,019  17,763,040 

120    acres    97,088  11,650,560  91,275  10,953,000 

80    acres     49,490  3,959,200  48,414  3,873,120 

60    acres    359  £1,540  317  19,020 

40    acres    542  21,680  470  18,800 

10   acres    5  50  3  30 

263,100  34,151,590  251,498  32,627,010 
Summary : 
War     of     the     Revolution, 

acts   prior  to   1800    16,663  2,666,080 

War  of  1812,  acts  prior  to 

1850     „.. 29,186  4,845,920  29,013  4,807,520 

Act    of    1847    88,274  13,213,640  86,307  12,956,520 

Act   of   1850    189,145  13,168,480  184,390  12,864,200 

Act    of    1852    11,992  694,400  11,759  680,600 

Act    of    1855     263,100  3A,151,590  251,498  32,627,010 


598,360     68,740,110 


CHAPTER  XI 

LAND   GRANTS   FOR  EDUCATION 

Any  study  of  the  system  of  Federal  land  grants 
for  education  which  only  covers  the  period  from 
1785  to  1820  must  be  considered  a  study  of  origins, 
for  although  the  system  had  been  well  established 
by  the  latter  date  it  was  many  years  before  it 
reached  its  highest  development.  In  the  chapter 
dealing  with  military  bounty  lands  it  seemed  desir- 
able to  carry  the  discussion  to  the  present  time,  for 
practically  no  important  changes  in  the  bounty 
laws  have  taken  place  in  the  past  fifty  years.  But 
in  the  case  of  the  land  grants  for  education  the 
system  developed  largely  in  the  period  after  1820, 
the  school  grants  being  doubled  after  1848  and  the 
grants  for  higher  education  increased  and  extended 
in  1862.  A  study  of  this  development  involves  an 
understanding  of  the  development  of  the  general 
land  legislation  of  the  period  and  as  such  a  discus- 
sion is  quite  beyond  the  scope  of  this  work  it  will 
be  necessary  to  limit  the  treatment  of  this  special 
topic  to  the  period  embraced  in  the  general  study.1 

i  For  colonial  precedents  see  Schafer,  The  Origin  of  the  System 
of  Land  Grants  for  Education,  Bulletin  of  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin, No.  63,  1902.  For  a  study  of  the  management  of  the  land 
grants  in  the  Northwest  Territory,  see  Knight,  History  and  Man- 
agement of  Federal  Land  Grants  for  Education  in  the  Northwest 
Territory,  Papers  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  Vol.  I., 
1886.  For  the  operation  of  the  system  in  other  states  see  the  cir- 
culars of  information,  Bureau  of  Education,  1890  and  1891. 

263 


264  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  dwell  upon  the  colonial 
precedents  for  land  grants  for  educational  pur- 
poses. They  were  important  features  of  the  New 
England  land  system,  and  New  England  men  early 
suggested  that  these  grants  be  carried  over  into  the 
Federal  system.  The  officers  at  Newburgh  who 
petitioned  for  land  in  1783  desired  that  reserves- 
be  made  for  education  and  for  the  ministry,  and  of 
the  two  hundred  and  eighty-five  petitioners  all 
but  fifty  were  from  New  England.  Eland's  pro- 
posal of  the  same  year  indicated  seminaries  of 
learning  as  a  proper  object  of  expenditure  for  the 
land  revenue.  Knowing  the  liberal  ideas  of  Jeffer- 
son on  all  questions  of  education  it  is  surprising 
that  no  provision  for  land  grants  was  made  in  the 
proposed  land  ordinance  of  1784,  which  he  so 
largely  drew  up.  Gerry  and  Ho  well,  who  repre- 
sented Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island  on  the 
committee,  must  have  suggested  the  New  England 
custom  of  granting  land  for  education  and  religion, 
but  whether  the  three  southern  members  objected 
to  supporting  a  system  new  to  them,  or  whether  the 
members  generally  questioned  the  right  of  Con- 
gress to  devote -any  portion  of  the  public  domain 
to  such  purposes,  will  probably  never  be  known.  At 
any  rate  the  proposed  Ordinance  was  criticized  in 
New  England  because  of  its  omission  of  reserves 
for  schools  and  religious  purposes.  ' 

The  history  of  the  Ordinance  of  1785  has  already 
been  given.  As  adopted,  only  the  reserve  of  section 
sixteen  in  each  township  for  schools  was  retained, 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    EDUCATION  265 

the  reserve  of  an  additional  section  for  religious 
purposes  being  struck  out  by  a  close  vote.  And 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  grant  for  educa- 
tion was  not  wholly  disinterested  upon  the  part  of 
Congress.  It  was  not  made  so  much  to  encourage 
education  as  to  stimulate  the  land  sales,  if  the 
statement  of  the  man  most  influential  in  drafting 
the  Ordinance  is  to  be  accepted.  The  New  England 
members  doubtless  voted  for  it  because  of  their 
knowledge  of  the  value  of  the  system  of  state  aid, 
but  the  southern  members  just  as  probably  accepted 
Grayson's  opinion,  "that  the  idea  of  a  township, 
with  the  temptation  of  a  support  for  religion  and 
education,  holds  forth  an  inducement  for  neighbor- 
hoods of  the  same  religious  sentiments  to  confed- 
erate for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  and  settling 
together."  2  If  there  had  been  a  larger  representa- 
tion in  Congress  the  reserves  for  "  religion  "  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  made.  Congress  had  de- 
cided that  the  modified  system  of  township-plant- 
ing was  best  adapted  for  the  sale  of  the  public 
domain,  and  reserves  for  "  religion  "  were  features 
of  that  system  in  New  England.  No  question  was 
raised  as  to  the  right  of  Congress  to  make  the 
educational  reserves.  Years  afterwards  such  grants 
were  criticized  as  violations  of  the  Virginia  deed  of 
cession,  but  in  1785  Virginians  seemed  to  consider 
them  a  "bona  fide"  disposition.  They  were  a 
"  temptation,"  an  "  inducement,"  to  settlement, 
and  they  were  offered  by  the  Federal  government 

2  Sec  p.  31. 


266  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

much  as  any  other  great  land  owner  might  make 
such  concessions. 

In  1787  three  acts  tended  to  confirm  the  system 
of  national  land  grants  for  education.  First  came 
the  general  provision  in  the  Ordinance  of  1787  that 
"religion,  morality,  and  knowledge,  being  nec- 
essary to  good  government  and  the  happiness  of 
mankind,  schools  and  the  means  of  education  shall 
forever  be  encouraged."  Then  came  the  instruc- 
tions of  Congress  to  the  Board  of  Treasury  con- 
cerning the  proposed  sales  to  companies  of  land  in 
the  Northwest.3  These  authorized  the  grant,  in  the 
tract  under  discussion,  of  every  section  sixteen  for 
education  and  every  section  twenty-nine  for  the 
purposes  of  religion,  as  well  as  the  grant  of  two 
townships  for  a  university.  And  finally  came  the 
incorporation  in  the  constitution  of  the  clause  giv- 
ing Congress  unlimited  power  over  the  public 
lands.4 

Congress  was,  however,  by  no  means  committed 
to  the  policy  of  land  grants  for  education.  The 
Ordinance  of  1785  only  applied  to  the  Seven 
Ranges  which  were  surveyed  under  it.  In  the  pur- 
chases of  the  Ohio  Company  and  of  John  Cleve 
Symmes  there  were  school  reserves  and  a  university 
grant  was  reserved  in  the  former,5  but  for  the  rest 
of  the  Northwest  no  provision  was  made,  and  with 
the  establishment  of  the  new  government  it  seemed 

s  J.  IV.,  app.  17.  *  Art.  IV.,  section  3,  paragraph  2. 

6  A.  township   for  a  university  was  granted  in  the  Symmes  pur- 
chase in   1792. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    EDUCATION  267 

as  if  Congress  was  bent  on  rejecting  the  liberal 
precedents  of  the  old  Congress.  This  is  evident 
from  a  study  of  the  legislation  of  the  first  few  Con- 
gresses. Hamilton  failed  to  recommend  school  re- 
serves in  his  report  of  1790  and  no  provision  was 
made  for  them  in  the  bill  which  passed  the  House 
in  1791.  When  the  Virginia  military  tract  was  set 
apart  in  1790  no  part  of  it  was  reserved  for  schools 
nor  were  they  provided  for  in  the  United  States 
military  district.  The  inhabitants  of  these  regions 
would  need  schools  as  much  as  any  of  the  Western 
people,  but  as  the  lands  there  were  not  to  be  sold 
a  grant  of  school  lands  could  not  acclerate  the  sale. 
Possibly  under  these  circumstances  a  grant  of  lands 
for  schools  was  not  considered  a  "  bona  fide  "  dis- 
position of  the  public  domain. 

In  1796  and  1800  Congress  passed  acts  for  the 
sale  of  lands  in  the  Northwest.  Every  reason  for 
the  educational  grants  which  could  be  presented  in 
1785  still  held — but  one.  In  these  acts  Congress 
abandoned  the  system  of  township-planting,  and 
apparently  it  abandoned  the  educational  grants 
which  were  a  part  of  that  system.  No  effort  seems 
to  have  been  made  to  incorporate  land  grants  in 
these  acts,  although  Congress  was  well  aware  of  the 
grants  under  the  old  Congress.  In  fact  it  extended 
one  of  those  grants,  for  in  the  case  of  the  Symmes 
purchase  it  reserved  the  sixteenth  section  not  only 
in  the  tract  which  he  eventually  purchased,  but  in 
the  entire  tracts  which  he  first  bargained  for.  This, 
however,  was  really  a  small  concession,  and  it 


268  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

looked  as  if  the  central  government  had  finally 
decided  to  offer  no  further  aid  to  education.9 

But  such  was  not  to  be  the  case,  and  within  two 
years  from  the  negative  Act  of  1800  Congress  had 
taken  steps  toward  placing  the  land  grants-  for 
education  upon  the  surest  of  foundations.  It  was 
the  "  act  to  enable  the  people  of  the  eastern  division 
of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio  to  form 
a  constitution  and  State  government,  and  for  the 
admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses," which  restored  the  educational  land  grants 
to  the  Federal  land  system.7  The  Ohio  Enabling 
Act  and  its  modification  are  discussed  in  other  con- 
nections. Here  it  is  simply  of  importance  to  note 
that  the  grant  of  the  school  sections,  the  salt 
springs,  and  the  five  per  cent,  fund  were  all  offered 
to  Ohio  on  condition  of  her  agreeing  to  exempt 
from  all  taxes  the  lands  sold  by  the  United  States 

« The  attention  of  Congress  was  called  to  this  question  through 
the  following  petitions,  etc.  In  1799  the  inhabitants  of  Mississippi 
Territory  prayed  for  an  appropriation  for  schools  and  religion 
similar  to  those  in  the  Northwest.  A  committee  of  the  House  con- 
sidered it  inexpedient  to  grant  this  request.  Annals,  1799-1801,  153. 
On  December  18,  1800,  a  committee  of  the  House  was  appointed  to 
report  on  the  lands  reserved  for  schools  and  religion  in  the  North- 
west, id.  836.  On  January  24,  1800,  a  petition  of  settlers  between 
the  Scioto  and  Little  Miami  rivers  for  land  for  an  academy,  was 
presented,  id.  425.  On  January  2,  1801,  a  petition  came  up  from 
Wayne  County,  Northwest  Territory,  for  school  lands  and  a  town- 
ship for  the  support  of  the  Gospel,  id.  875.  In  1802,  Wayne  County 
desired  land  for  a  college,  Vincennes  wanted  a  grant  for  Jefferson 
academy,  and  Fairfteld  County  wanted  two  sections  in  each  town- 
ship for  seminaries.  Annals,  1801-2,  949,  497,  508. 

i  April  30,  1802,  ch.   40. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR   EDUCATION  269 

for  five  years  after  the  date  of  sale.  On  no  other 
ground  could  the  grants  be  explained.  Some  mem- 
bers of  Congress  held  that  the  grants  would  en- 
hance the  value  of  the  remaining  public  lands  but 
that  would  not  account  for  the  grant  of  school 
lands  for  the  Connecticut  Reserve  and  the  two 
military  districts  in  which  no  lands  were  being  sold 
by  the  United  States.  The  House  Committee  in 
1803,  based  the  grant  of  school  lands  upon  the  pre- 
cedent in  the  Ordinance  of  1785,  but  as1  even  that 
could  not  cover  a  grant  of  school  lands  in  a  district 
not  subject  to  Federal  sale,  the  Committee  dwelt 
upon  the  desirability  "  of  acceding  to  a  proposition, 
the  tendency  of  which  is  to  cherish  and  confirm  our 
present  happy  political  institutions  and  habits." 8 

(As  a  matter  of  fact  Congress  could  have  granted 
the  school  lands  to  Ohio  without  any  condition  at 
all,  under  its  unlimited  power  over  the  public  lands, 
but  it  is  doubtful  if  at  the  time  a  majority  in  Con- 
gress would  have  consented  to  override  the  terms 
of  the  Virginia  cession  and  the  pledge  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  land  sales  to  the  public  debt.  It  is  a 
pity,  therefore,  that  Congress  had  to  clothe  so 
promising  a  grant  in  the  form  of  a  bargain.  It 
would  have  been  a  far  nobler  act  if  the  preamble 
had  quoted  the  appropriate  sentence  of  the  Ordi- 
nance of  1787,  that  "religion,  morality,  and  knowl- 
edge, being  necessary  to  good  government  and  the 
happiness  of  mankind,  schools  and  the  means  of 
education  shall  forever  be  encouraged,"  and  had 

8  Misc.   I.,  340. 


270  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

made  the  grants  in  fulfillment  of  that  promise.  If 
some  quid  pro  quo  was  necessary  for  the  tax 
exemption  it  could  have  been  arranged  in  some 
other  way.  But  this  was  not  done,  the  school  lands 
were  made  one  of  the  items  in  the  compact,  and  a 
troublesome  precedent  was  created  which  caused 
the  tax  exemption  feature  to  be  retained  even  after 
the  system  of  credit  sales,  which  caused  its  intro- 
duction, was  abolished. 

The  first  enabling  act  stated  "that  the  section, 
number  sixteen,  in  every  township,  and  where  such 
section  has  been  sold,  granted  or  disposed  of,  other 
lands  equivalent  thereto,  and  most  contiguous  to 
the  same,  shall  be  granted  to  the  inhabitants  of  such 
township  for  the  use  of  schools."  The  Ohio  con- 
vention questioned  the  general  nature  of  this  clause 
and  insisted  upon  a  more  definite  grant.  This  was 
really  necessary  because  of  the  great  tracts  in  Ohio 
which  had  already  been  disposed  of.  So  in  the 
modifying  act  of  1803  Congress  specified  certain 
quarter  townships  in  the  military  tract  "  being  the 
one  thirty-sixth  part  of  the  estimated  whole  amount 
of  lands  within  that  tract,"  which  were  reserved 
for  the  schools  in  that  district;  in  the  same  tract 
other  quarter  townships  were  reserved  for  the  use 
of  schools  in  the  Connecticut  Reserve ;  for  the  Vir- 
ginia military  reserve  the  school  lands  were  to  be 
selected  by  the  state  from  the  unlocated  lands,  but 
the  total  was  not  to  exceed  one  thirty-sixth  of  the 
area  nor  to  exceed  the  residue  of  the  unlocated 
lands  even  if  they  fell  short  of  the  requisite  amount ; 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    EDUCATION  271 

and  finally  the  state  was  granted  one  thirty-sixth 
of  all  lands  to  be  purchased  from  the  Indians,  the 
same  to  be  the  sixteenth  section  in  every  township 
six  miles  square,  and  shall  "  if  the  lands  be  surveyed 
in  a  different  manner,"  be  designated  by  lots.  This 
act  also  permitted  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
to  select  lieu  lands  from  the  nearest  unappro- 
priated reserved  sections  for  any  section  sixteen 
which  might  have  been  disposed  of,  and  it  granted 
to  the  State  a  township  of  land  to  take  the  place  of 
the  one  granted  to  Symmes  but  never  located. 

This  act  was  considered  satisfactory  at  the  time, 
although  it  failed  to  provide  land  for  some  of  the 
townships.  The  western  half  of  the  Connecticut 
Reserve  was  not  ceded  by  the  Indians  until  1805, 
and  it  was  not  until  1834  that  Congress  permitted 
the  selection  of  the  school  lands  for  this  region  in 
the  State  at  large.9  Under  the  act  no  lands  were  to 
be  selected  for  schools  in  the  Virginia  military  re- 
serve until  after  all  the  bounty  warrants  had  been 
located.  As  Congress  kept  extending  the  time  for 
the  location  of  the  warrants  and  as  the  issue  of  war- 
rants kept  increasing  it  began  to  be  very  doubtful  if 
there  would  be  any  land  left  for  the  schools.  Con- 
gress therefore,  in  1807,  authorized  the  grant  of 
eighteen  quarter  townships  and  three  sections  in 
the  lands  ceded  by  the  Indians  in  1805.10  Again, 
in  1826,  Congress  granted  eight  hundred  acres  for 
the  schools  within  the  Gallipolis  grant  of  1795.11 

»  June  19,  1834,  ch.  56.  ™  March  2,  1807,  ch.  21. 

"May   20,   1826,   ch.   83. 


272  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

With  these  acts  the  Federal  grants  for  schools  in 
Ohio  were  completed. 

The  Ohio  enabling  act  established  the  necessary 
precedent  for  future  educational  grants.  After 
this  time  Congress  would  reserve  school  and  sem- 
inary lands  during  the  territorial  period  and  then 
vest  them  in  the  State  on  its  admission  into  the 
Union  in  consideration  of  the  tax  exemption 
already  noted.  The  first  act  reserving  these  lands 
was  that  for  the  region  south  of  Tennessee,  in 
1803,  where  a  township  and  certain  lots  near 
Natchez  were  also  reserved  for  Jefferson  College. 
The  next  year  provision  was  made  for  the  sale  of 
lands  in  Indiana  Territory,  and  the  school  sections 
and  three  townships  for  seminaries  were  re- 
served. These  townships  were  located  in  the  three 
land  districts  which  later  became  the  States  of  In- 
diana, Illinois,  and  Michigan.  From  that  time  there 
has  been  a  long  series  of  acts  reserving  the  lands 
for  education  as  new  land  districts  were  erected  or 
Indian  cessions  were  ordered  to  be  surveyed. 

Of  a  different  nature  was  the  first  grant  of  lands 
for  education  in  Tennessee.  The  conditions  in  that 
State  were  exceptional  so  the  normal  course  of  de- 
velopments could  not  be  followed.12  In  theory  Ten- 
nessee was  a  public  land  State,  but  in  1806  the 
United  States  had  not  granted  an  acre  of  land, 
although  practically  all  the  good  land  outside  the 
Indian  boundaries  had  been  appropriated  under 

12  See  chap.   13. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    EDUCATION  273 

North  Carolina  warrants.  Tennessee,  moreover, 
was  a  sovereign  State,  having  been  admitted  in 
1796.  At  that  time  the  school  grants  had  not  been 
accepted  as  a  part  of  the  enabling  acts  of  public 
land  states,  and  as  the  Ordinance  of  1787  had  been 
extended  to  the  region  which  became  the  State  of 
Tennessee  its  compact  was  believed  sufficient  to 
protect  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  the  lands 
in  that  State.  So,  after  the  admission  of  Tennessee, 
North  Carolina  continued  to  perfect  her  former 
grants  within  that  State,  while  the  United  States 
did  not  deem  it  advisable  to  commence  disposing 
of  the  public  lands  until  the  North  Carolina  claims 
were  all  satisfied.  Moreover  Tennessee  believed 
that  she  had  certain  rights  in  the  lands  within  her 
limits.  The  question  was  settled  for  the  time  by 
the  Act  of  1806  by  which  the  United  States  ceded 
to  Tennessee  the  eastern  two-thirds  of  the  State  on 
condition  of  her  giving  up  all  claims  to  the  remain- 
ing lands  and  of  agreeing  to  exempt  the  latter  from 
all  taxes  for  five  years  after  sale.  But  the  United 
States  made  further  conditions  to  the  effect  that 
Tennessee  should  perfect  all  outstanding  North 
Carolina  titles,  and  appropriate  certain  lands  for 
schools,  academies,  and  colleges.  Being  based  on  a 
tax  exemption  these  land  grants  were  like  those  of 
the  enabling  acts,  but  they  were  made  to  a  state 
already  in  the  union,  they  rose  out  of  exceptional 
conditions,  they  were  uncertain  in  amount,  and 
actually  amounted  to  very  little. 

Another  deviation  from  the  regular  system  of 


274  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

?J"t1W-»'        .,•«"•*  .jiK-  X^   >  '  W" 

land  grants  for  schools  was  made  in  the  case  of 
Louisiana.  The  presence  there  of  so  much  land 
held  under  foreign  titles  or  claims  interfered  with 
the  existing  system  of  reserving  the  school  sections 
before  the  land  was  placed  on  sale.  In  1805  a 
memorial  came  up  from  the  Legislature  of  the 
Territory  of  Orleans  praying  for  educational 
grants,  and  a  committee  of  the  House  reported  in 
favor  of  a  grant  of  one  thirty-sixth  of  "the  lands 
of  the  United  States  "  within  the  territory  for  the 
use  of  schools.  On  this  report  Congress  proceeded 
to  reserve  section  sixteen  in  every  township  sur- 
veyed for  sale,  as  well  as  a  township  for  a  seminary 
of  learning.13  But  when  the  enabling  act  for  Or- 
leans Territory  was  passed,  no  educational  grants 
were  provided.14  The  act  contained  certain  pro- 
visions which  must  be  incorporated  in  the  State 
Constitution,  among  them  the  tax  exemption  of 
lands  sold  by  the  United  States  for  five  years.  No 
consideration  was  offered  for  this  concession.  No 
school  or  college  land  grants  were  made.  The  five 
per  cent,  fund  was  granted,  but  as  a  free  gift 
rather  than  as  a  "  quid  pro  quo."  In  other  words, 
the  country  beyond  the  Mississippi  had  never  come 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and 
so  it  was  not  necessary  to  secure  the  voluntary  con- 
sent of  the  inhabitants  of  that  region  to  the  tax 
exemption  measure.15  Therefore,  Congress  im- 

"  p.  L.  I.,  258.    April  21,  1806.  "Feb.  20,  1811. 

IB  The  "  articles  of  compact "  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  could 
only  be  altered  by  common  consent  of  the  Original  States  and  the 
people  of  the  states  to  which  it  applied. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR   EDUCATION  275 

posed  the  condition  and  did  not  need  to  offer  the 
customary  land  grants.  However,  Louisiana  se- 
cured some  school  lands  and  a  township  for  a  uni- 
versity, but  no  provision  was  made  for  the  regions 
which  were  held  under  private  claims.  The  school 
sections  reserved  in  the  public  lands  were  turned 
over  to  the  State  in  1843,  when  the  Legislature  was 
empowered  to  sell  them,  with  the  consent  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  townships  concerned.16 

In  the  case  of  Missouri,  the  second  State  to  be 
admitted  west  of  the  Mississippi,  the  enabling  act 
was  a  combination  of  the  two  existing  types.17 
Certain  conditions  contained  in  the  Ordinance  of 
1787  were  imposed,  and  then  the  land  grants  wfire 
offered  on  condition  of  the  tax  exemption.  This 
was  a  perfect  example  of  the  "  quid  pro  quo  "  idea. 
In  the  case  of  Missouri,  Congress  could  have  in- 
sisted upon  the  tax  exemption  just  as  it  did  in  the 
case  of  Louisiana,  and  then  it  could  have  gra- 
ciously offered  the  various  land  grants  and  the  five 
per  cent.  fund.  In  any  case,  Missouri  received  one 
section  for  schools  in  every  township  of  the  State, 
and  the  form  of  the  act  was  followed  in  the  case 
of  Arkansas,  the  next  State  beyond  the  Missis- 
sippi to  be  admitted.18 

18  The  Mississippi  enabling  act  of  1817  was  modeled  on  the  Or- 
leans act.  "  March  6,  1820. 

i«  June  23,  1836.  A  study  of  the  enabling  acts  of  this  period 
discloses  the  following  variations  in  addition  to  those  mentioned  in 
the  text.  A  comparison  of  the  acts  for  Mississippi  and  for  Ala- 
bama is  of  interest.  The  Ordinance  of  1787  was  never  formally 
extended  to  the  entire  region  covered  by  those  states,  although  it 
was  applied  to  the  cessions  of  North  and  South  Carolina  and  the 


276  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

During  the  territorial  period  Congress  provided 
in  various  ways  for  the  protection  and  improve- 
ment of  the  school  reserves,  but  the  only  act  passed 
before  1820  was  that  providing  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  number  of  agents  by  the  county  courts 

southern  half  of  what  later  became  the  Georgia  cessions.  In  the 
articles  of  agreement  and  cession  between  the  United  States  and 
Georgia,  of  1802,  it  was  stipulated  that  the  terms  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  should  be  extended  to  the  Georgia  cession,  except  the  pro- 
hibition of  slavery.  Yet  when  Mississippi  was  admitted  it  was  con- 
sidered necessary  to  secure  an  irrevocable  ordinance  on  the  part 
of  the  state  to  the  effect  that  the  people  of  the  territory  disclaim 
all  right  or  title  to  the  waste  land  within  the  territory,  that  no  taxes 
shall  be  placed  on  lands  sold  by  the  United  States  for  five  years 
from  the  date  of  sale,  that  lands  of  non-resident  citizens  shall  not 
be  taxed  higher  than  those  of  residents,  that  no  taxes  shall  be  im- 
posed on  lands  the  property  of  the  United  States",  and  that  the 
Mississippi  and  other  navigable  streams  shall  be  common  highways 
free  from  all  state  taxes  or  tolls.  These  conditions  were  a  combi- 
nation of  the  articles  of  compact  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  and  the 
tax  exemption  bargain  of  the  Ohio  enabling  act.  But  Mississippi 
was  required  to  accept  them  without  any  choice  in  the  matter  and 
no  compensation  was  offered,  although  a  free  gift  of  the  five  per 
cent,  fund  was  made.  In  1819,  when  the  Alabama  enabling  act 
was  passed,  the  school  and  college  lands,  the  salt  springs  and  the 
five  per  cent,  fund,  were  offered  to  the  convention  "  for  their  free 
acceptance  or  rejection"  provided  that  the  irrevocable  ordinance 
similar  to  that  prescribed  for  Mississippi  be  enacted.  An  infer- 
ence from  this  act  is  that  Alabama  might  have  rejected  the  offer 
and  then  asserted  her  title  to  the  lands  within  her  limits.  But  if 
the  convention  had  done  so  Congress  certainly  would  not  have  ad- 
mitted her  into  the  Union,  and  the  claims  of  a  territory  to  the 
public  lands  within  its  limits  would  have  been  untenable.  After 
1820  the  right  of  the  Federal  government  to  retain  possession  of 
the  public  lands  within  a  sovereign  state  was  frequently  questioned, 
but  no  satisfactory  constitutional  objection  could  be  raised.  The 
question  became  such  a  troublesome  one  at  times  that  many  mem- 
bers of  Congress  believed  it  would  be  expedient  to  cede  the  public 
lands  to  the  states  in  which  they  lay,  but  fortunately  this  opinion 
was  never  widely  held. 
Missouri,  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  Arkansas  agreed,  in  their  com- 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    EDUCATION  277 

in  Mississippi  for  the  purpose  of  leasing  the  school 
lands  and  for  protecting  them  from  waste.19  But 
the  vesting  of  the  educational  reserves  in  the  State 
on  its  admission  did  not  bring  to  an  end  the  con- 
trol of  Congress  over  them.  The  State  merely 
acted  as  a  trustee  and  Congress  retained  the  right 
to  insist  upon  the  proper  execution  of  the  trust, 
although  the  right  was  never  used.  The  leasing 
of  the  school  sections  was  not  considered  profitable 
by  the  States,  and  after  1820  first  Ohio,  and  then 
the  other  States,  in  turn,  were  given  the  right  to 
sell  the  lands  and  use  the  proceeds  for  the  support 
of  the  schools.20  The  principle  upon  which  Con- 
gress acted  was  that  the  States  should  not  dispose 
of  their  school  lands  until  they  could  be  sold  for  a 
substantial  price,  and  that  in  the  meanwhile  they 
should  be  leased  under  the  direction  of  the  State 
legislatures. 

The  most  important  development  in  the  school 
grants  after  1820  was  the  reservation  of  the  thirty- 
sixth  section  in  addition  to  the  sixteenth  in  each 

pacts,  not  to  tax  military  bounty  lands  for  three  years  after  the 
date  of  the  patent,  so  long  as  they  were  retained  by  the  patentee 
of  his  heirs. 

Although  the  credit  system,  which  made  the  five  year  tax  ex- 
emption desirable,  was  abandoned  in  1820  it  was  not  until  1836 
that  a  public  land  state  secured  the  right  to  tax  public  lands  as 
soon  as  sold.  The  enabling  acts  of  Michigan  and  Arkansas  omitted 
the  former  restriction  on  the  taxing  power,  except  in  the  case  of 
bounty  lands.  In  1847  the  states  admitted  before  1820,  regained 
the  right,  and  Missouri  finally  secured  the  assent  of  Congress  in 
1852. 

19  Jan.  9,  1815,  ch.  20. 

20  Ohio,  1826,  Alabama,  1827,  Indiana,  1828,  etc. 


278  THE    NATIONAL    LAND 

township  in  Oregon  Territory  by  the  Act  of  Au- 
gust 14,  1848,  and  all  States  admitted  since  that 
time  have  enjoyed  the  increased  grants. 

The  custom  of  granting  lands  to  the  States  for 
the  purpose  of  higher  education  originated  not  in 
the  Ordinance  of  1785  but  in  the  land  sales  of 
1787.  The  United  States  granted  two  townships 
in  the  Ohio  Company's  purchase  for  the  use  of 
universities,  and  offered  similar  donations  to  pur- 
chasers of  equal  amounts  of  land.  John  Cleve 
Symmes  desired  a  township  in  his  tract,  but  his 
purchase  did  not  warrant  such  a  donation;  how- 
ever, in  1792  Congress  decided  to  make  the  desired 
grant  for  a  university  in  his  tract.  The  first 
university  grant,  therefore,  was  simply  a  feature 
of  the  private  bargain  between  the  old  Congress 
and  the  representatives  of  the  Ohio  Company. 
The  university  grants  formed  no  part  of  the  bar- 
gain with  Ohio  in  1803,  although  the  act  provided 
for  securing  the  township  appropriated  in  1792, 
but  never  located  by  Symmes.  Congress  consid- 
ered the  principle  a  good  one  and  extended  its 
operation  south  of  Tennessee,  when  a  township 
and  certain  lots  were  reserved  there  for  Jefferson 
College,  in  1803.  The  next  year  three  townships 
were  reserved  in  what  became  the  States  of  In- 
diana, Illinois,  and  Michigan,  and  two  years  later 
the  principle  was  further  extended  beyond  the 
Mississippi  and  a  township  was  reserved  in  the 
western  district  of  the  Territory  of  Orleans.  In 
1811  a  second  township  was  reserved  in  Orleans 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    EDUCATION  279 

and  one  in  Louisiana  Territory,  but,  as  has  been 
pointed  out,  the  Orleans  enabling  act  contained  no 
educational  grants. 

A  second  township  for  a  university  in  Missis- 
sippi Territory  was  reserved  in  1815.  Indiana  was 
admitted  in  1816,  and  two  townships  for  a  semi- 
nary were  granted  as  a  part  of  the  tax  exemption 
compact.  But  the  next  year  Mississippi  was  ad- 
mitted and  no  educational  grants  were  made,  al- 
though the  tax  exemption  was  insisted  upon.  The 
State  did  not  lose  the  educational  grants,  however, 
for  the  school  lands  and  two  townships  for  a  uni- 
versity had  already  been  reserved.  In  1818  Illinois 
received  two  townships  for  a  seminary,  and  the 
three  per  cent,  fund  in  that  State  was  to  be  applied 
to  the  encouragement  of  learning,  "  of  which  one- 
sixth  part  shall  be  exclusively  bestowed  on  a  col- 
lege or  university."  The  Alabama  act  of  the  next 
year  was  modeled  on  the  Illinois  act,  rather  than 
on  the  enabling  act  of  Mississippi,  her  sister  State. 
The  grant  of  two  townships  for  a  university  was 
made  one  of  the  off ers.  Missouri  also  was  offered 
two  townships  in  1820. 

Aside  from  these  uniform  donations  of  two 
townships  to  a  State,  except  in  the  case  of  Ohio, 
which  received  three,  there  were  a  few  minor 
grants  in  favor  of  universities  or  seminaries,  as 
they  were  at  times  called.  Certain  town  and  out- 
lots  near  Natchez,  Mississippi,  were  granted  to 
Jefferson  College  in  1803.  Tennessee  was  in- 
structed to  appropriate  one  hundred  thousand 


280  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

acres  to  each  of  two  universities  out  of  an  indefi- 
nite amount  of  land  granted  by  the  government. 
The  common  at  Vincennes  was  ordered  to  be  di- 
vided and  sold  and  the  proceeds  were  to  be  used 
for  draining  a  pond  near  by,  the  balance  going  to 
the  Vincennes  University.21  But  down  to  1862  the 
grants  of  this  kind  were  small  and  rare.  In  that 
year  came  the  great  grants  for  agricultural  and 
mechanical  colleges,  which  reached  almost  nine 
times  the  amount  of  land  previously  granted  to 
universities. 

In  addition  to  these  purely  educational  grants 
there  were  two  which  were  more  in  the  nature  of 
aid  to  a  deserving  charity,  although  the  charity  had 
an  educational  aspect.  These  were  the  grants  for 
the  aid  of  asylums  for  the  education  and  instruc- 
tion of  deaf  and  dumb  persons.  In  1819  a  town- 
ship of  land  was  granted  to  the  Connecticut  Asy- 
lum. This  was  a  distinct  departure  from  all  for- 
mer grants,  for  it  was  for  the  benefit  of  a  private 
institution  in  one  of  the  old  States.  No  one  could 
question  the  merit  of  the  institution  which  was 
benefited,  but  the  grant  was  simply  an  act  of  grace 
on  the  part  of  Congress.  With  the  passage  of  the 
measure  Congressmen  believed  a  new  opening  had 
been  found  for  onslaughts  on  the  public  domain. 
The  next  year  a  bill  was  presented  to  the  House 
in  favor  of  the  New  York  Asylum,  and  the  oppo- 
sition attacked  it  on  grounds  of  expediency,  as  a 
violation  of  the  compacts  of  cession,  and  as  a  vio- 

«i  April   20,   1818,   ch.    128. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR    EDUCATION  281 

lation  of  the  Constitution,  the  latter  of  which  could 
not  be  maintained.22  The  House  rejected  the  bill 
by  a  large  majority.  In  1826,  a  grant  similar  to 
that  to  the  Connecticut  Asylum  was  made  in  the 
case  of  the  Kentucky  Asylum,  and  after  that,  al- 
though many  other  petitions  were  presented  in 
favor  of  asylums  in  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Penn- 
sylvania, Ohio,  North  Carolina,  and  Indiana,  Con- 
gress refused  to  extend  the  grants.  It  realized 
that  it  had  apparently  established  a  bad  precedent, 
and  after  it  had  balanced  the  grant  for  the  North- 
east with  one  for  the  Southwest  it  refused  to  op- 
propriate  more  of  the  public  domain  in  aid  of  pri- 
vate charitable  or  educational  institutions  in  the  old 
States. 

Only  a  word  need  be  said  in  reference  to  grants 
for  religious  purposes.  In  the  Ohio  Company  and 
the  Symmes'  purchases  one  section  in  each  town- 
ship was  reserved  for  religious  purposes.  Congress 
was  only  willing  to  carry  out  the  letter  of  the  law 
in  these  grants  and  refused  to  appropriate  lieu 
lands  in  cases  where  section  29  was  not  available.23 
Applications  for  lands  for  the  support  of  religion 
came  up  to  Congress  from  Mississippi  Territory 
in  1799  and  from  the  Northwest  in  1801,  but  Con- 
gress refused  to  incorporate  the  grants  in  the  gen- 
eral system.  In  1811  a  special  grant  of  this  kind 
was  sanctioned  by  Congress  in  the  case  of  the  Bap- 
tist Church  at  Salem,  Mississippi,  but  President 
Monroe  vetoed  the  bill  because  it  comprised  "a 

22  Annals,   1819-20,   p.   882.  23  p.  L.   II.,  253-4. 


282  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

principle  and  precedent  for  the  appropriation  of 
funds  of  the  United  States  for  the  use  and  sup- 
port of  religious  societies,  contrary  to  the  article 
of  the  Constitution  which  declares  that  Congress 
shall  make  no  law  respecting  a  religious  establish- 
ment." Monroe's  action  was  endorsed  by  Con- 
gress, and  no  other  appropriation  of  land  for  re- 
ligious purposes  was  considered  during  the  period 
under  discussion. 

In  1828  Ohio  petitioned  for  permission  to  sell 
the  lands  reserved  for  religious  purposes,  and  in 
1833  this  was  granted.24  The  proceeds  of  the  sales 
were  to  be  invested  and  used  for  the  support  of 
religion,  under  the  direction  of  the  Legislature, 
within  the  townships  in  which  the  reserves  were 
located. 

The  land  grants  for  education  in  the  period  from 
1785  to  1820  followed  a  well-defined  system,  as 
has  been  shown.  The  grants  to  the  States  were 
not  entirely  uniform  in  amount  and  the  method  of 
actually  granting  the  land  varied  from  time  to 
time,  but  aside  from  the  grants  to  the  asylums  for 
the  deaf  and  dumb  there  was  little  deviation  from 
the  regular  system.  That  this  was  the  case  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  during  this  formative  period  the 
public  land  committees  in  Senate  and  House  were 
led  by  level-headed  men  who  refused  to  recom- 
mend favorably  the  petitions  for  lands  submitted 
by  institutions  in  the  new  States  and  the  old.  Con- 
gress could  have  made  a  grant  of  land  to  Stephens- 

2*  P.  L.  V.,  391.     Feb.  20,  1833,  ch.  49. 


LAND    GRANTS    FOR   EDUCATION  283 

burg  Academy  in  Virginia25  just  as  lawfully  as 
to  the  Connecticut  Asylum  for  the  Deaf  and 
Dumb,  but  it  was  evident  to  those  who  knew  most 
about  the  land  question  that  if  the  system  of  grants 
for  private  institutions  once  became  engrafted  on 
the  land  system  there  would  be  a  vicious  circle  of 
demands  from  institutions  in  every  State  in  the 
Union.  With  unlimited  control  over  the  public 
lands,  Congress  could  have  become  a  munificent 
patron  of  learning — but  there  would  have  been  a 
general  scramble  for  its  bounty.  It  was  expedi- 
ency, rather  than  any  lack  of  power,  which  caused 
the  denial  of  the  many  requests  of  the  needy  in- 
stitutions.26 Great  credit  must  be  accorded  the 
men  who  defended  the  regular  system  of  educa- 
tional grants  against  the  demands  for  special  fa- 
vors. 

At  the  very  end  of  the  period  now  under  dis- 
cussion the  whole  question  of  national  land  grants 
for  education  was  taken  up  in  a  new  way.  It  was 
then  that  the  idea  of  a  general  system  of  grants 
for  education  in  all  the  States,  old  and  new,  was 
earnestly  advocated.  In  1819  the  proposition 
called  for  a  grant  of  one  hundred  thousand  acres 
to  each  State  for  a  university.27  This  resolution 
was  unfavorably  reported  by  a  House  committee 
on  the  ground  of  expediency — to  invest  these  cor- 
porations with  Western  lands  would  impede  settle- 

25  P.  L.  II.,  11. 

26  For  many  of  these  petitions  see  State  Papers,  Public  Lands. 
en  Annals,  1818-19,  34§, 


281  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

ment  and  lower  the  value  of  the  public  land  near 
the  unoccupied  tracts.28  The  committee  preferred 
a  money  grant  to  one  of  land.  From  that  time 
until  the  distribution  bill  of  1841  some  sort  of  a 
proposal  was  before  Congress  for  educational 
grants  to  all  the  States  of  land  or  of  money  from 
the  land  revenue.  These  measures  were  generally 
involved  in  the  broader  question  of  the  distribution 
of  the  land  or  of  the  whole  surplus  revenue,  so  they 
must  be  considered  in  that  connection  and  not  in 
a  study  of  this  nature.  It  was  not  until  1862  that 
land  grants  for  higher  education  in  all  the  States 
were  made. 

A  study  of  the  development  of  land  grants  for 
education  leads  to  the  opinion  that  on  the  whole 
Congress  acted  wisely  in  the  matter.  The  grants 
followed  a  fairly  well-defined  system.  Every  one 
of  the  public  land  States  received  school  lands  and 
lands  for  the  aid  of  higher  education,  although  the 
grants  were  not  equal  in  amount.  These  appro- 
priations were  founded  upon  the  grants  of  the  Or- 
dinance of  1785,  they  were  revived  as  part  of  the 
bargain  with  Ohio,  and  they  were  continued  be- 
cause of  their  inherent  worth  and  the  equity  of 
treating  each  of  the  new  States  alike.  Frequently 
when  members  of  Congress  attempted  to  explain 
or  defend  the  grants  they  fell  into  curious  consti- 
tutional misinterpretations,  but  it  took  Congress  a 
long  while  to  realize  that  its  power  over  the  public 
lands  was  limited  only  by  its  good  judgment.  Its 

*s  P.  L.  III.,  410. 


285 

sound  common  sense  was  manifested  in  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  many  attempts  to  change  the  regular 
system  of  grants  into  a  hurried  scramble  between 
local  institutions.  No  matter  how  deserving  they 
might  have  been,  Congress  was  wise  in  denying 
them  special  grants  of  land.  It  would  have  been 
more  expedient,  although  less  constitutional,  to 
have  given  them  aid  in  money. 

With  the  vesting  of  the  educational  grants  in 
the  States,  on  their  admission,  the  responsibility  of 
Congress  ceased,  except  in  certain  instances,  when 
it  later  authorized  the  sale  of  school  and  seminary 
lands.  If  the  school  lands  were  carefully  preserved 
and  improved  they  should  furnish  a  steadily  in- 
creasing aid  toward  the  support  of  the  local  schools. 
But  this  has  not  always  been  the  case,29  and  the 
student  of  State  and  local  history  must  determine 
why  these  liberal  grants  were  not  more  generally 
effective. 

2»  Professor  Knight,  who  has  given  a  careful  account  of  the  actual 
operation  of  the  land  grants  in  his  "  History  and  Management  of 
Land  Grants  for  Education  in  the  Northwest  Territory"  summarizes 
the  causes  of  the  small  amount  of  some  of  the  state  educational 
funds  as  follows:  an  undue  haste  in  selling  the  lands;  careless  legis- 
lation and  lack  of  restrictions  on  the  Legislature;  failure  to  guard 
and  invest  properly  the  moneys  received  from  the  land  sales;  the 
general  indifference  of  the  people  to  the  whole  subject;  special  legis- 
lation; the  attempt  to  divert  educational  funds  from  their  proper 
object,  or  so  to  dispose  of  the  lands  as  to  accomplish  other  State 
purposes  to  the  injury  of  the  cause  of  education.  Pp.  162-166. 


CHAPTER  XII 

SPECIAL  GRANTS  OF  LAND,  PUBLIC  AND  PRIVATE 

Aside  from  the  general  systems  for  the  disposal 
of  the  public  domain,  which  included  sales,  boun- 
ties, grants  for  education  and  internal  improve- 
ments, preemptions  and  donations  to  settlers,  there 
were  a  number  of  special  acts  which  granted  land 
to  individuals,  companies,  or  administrative  bodies 
according  to  no  definite  policy  save  that  of  the 
good  will  of  Congress.  In  theory  it  is  surprising 
that  any  of  these  grants  should  have  been  made: 
in  practice  it  is  remarkable  that  each  example  was 
not  multiplied  tenfold.  In  making  each  grant 
Congress  showed  that  it  refused  to  be  bound  by 
any  iron-clad  system,  and  in  turn  it  refused  to 
consider  the  individual  grants  as  precedents  for 
future  action.  Grants-  were  given  and  were  again 
denied  with  no  uniformity  of  treatment.  In  place 
of  a  system  there  was  set  up  influence  and  expedi- 
ency. It  is  no  little  tribute  to  the  good  sense  of 
Congress  as  a  whole  that,  although  it  was  an  easy 
matter  to  grant  away  a  little  land,  so  few  of  the 
demands  for  special  favors  were  successfully  pre- 
sented. Because  of  the  lack  of  definite  plan  in 
the  making  of  the  grants  it  will  be  best  to  take  up 
each  one  in  order  rather  than  to  attempt  a  general 
treatment. 

286 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  287 

Under  the  Old  Congress  three  special  grants 
were  made,  to  the  Canadian  and  Nova  Scotian  vol- 
unteers and  refugees,  to  the  Christian  Indians  in 
Ohio,  and  to  Arnold  Henry  Dohrman. 

Canadian  Volunteers  and  Refugees 
With  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  a  few  of 
the  residents  of  Canada  espoused  the  cause  of  the 
colonists  to  the  southward.  Some  of  these  joined 
the  expedition  of  Montgomery  and  Arnold  against 
Quebec,  and  with  the  failure  of  that  expedition 
were  forced  to  withdraw  with  the  American  troops. 
Others  retired  voluntarily  or  were  forced  from 
their  homes  because  of  their  sympathy  with  the 
Americans.  Some  of  these  refugees  joined  Gen- 
eral Hazen's  brigade  of  the  Continental  forces, 
others  took  no  active  part  in  the  Revolution. 
When  the  treaty  of  peace  was  signed,  although  an 
effort  was  made  to  protect  the  Loyalists  in  the 
States,  no  provision  was  made  for  these  refugees. 
At  this  juncture  they  turned  to  Congress  for 
relief,  and  in  1783  the  Congress  of  the  Con- 
federation promised  that  as  soon  as  it  could  make 
grants  of  land  it  would  reward  them  for  "their 
virtuous  sufferings  in  the  cause  of  liberty."  *  In 
the  meantime  the  men,  women,  and  children  were 
to  receive  rations,  while  New  York  was  urged  to 
receive  the  officers  and  men  as  citizens.  Two  years 
later  a  similar  pledge  was  made  to  certain  refugees 
from  Nova  Scotia,2  and  the  first  step  toward  its 

i  April  23,  1783.    J.  IV.,  193.         2  April  13,  1785.     J.  IV.,  498. 


288  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

redemption  was  taken  when,  in  the  land  ordinance 
of  1785,  three  townships  adjacent  to  Lake  Erie 
were  reserved  for  these  refugees. 

But  a  reservation  did  not  mean  a  passing  of 
title,  especially  as  the  Indian  claims  to  the  region 
in  question  had  not  been  extinguished.  In  1784 
New  York  very  generously  offered  to  provide  land 
for  the  Canadians,3  and  grants  of  500  or  1,000  acres 
on  Lake  Champlain  were  made  in  a  number  of  in- 
stances. The  United  States  transported  them  to 
their  lands  and  furnished  them  with  rations  for 
fifteen  months,  and,  in  the  case  of  the  aged  and 
infirm,  for  another  year.4  In  1787  one  hundred 
and  seventy  rations  per  day  were  issued,  and  the 
next  year  forty-five  for  the  aged.5 

With  the  establishment  of  the  new  government 
and  the  settlement  of  Ohio  came  the  demand  for 
the  fulfillment  of  the  pledge  of  the  old  Congress. 
But  the  reserved  tract  could  not  be  granted  be- 
cause of  the  Indian  title,  and  the  promises  had 
been  indefinite  in  amount.  Petitions  in  1793  and 
1794  were  favorably  reported  by  House  commit- 
tees, but  no  legislation  was  passed  until  1798.6 
And  this  act  merely  provided  for  the  presentation 
of  claims  and  the  examination  of  them  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  and  the  Secretary  and  Comptroller 
of  the  Treasury.  The  donation  of  land  was  not  to 
be  given  for  military  service  alone,  but  for  "serv- 

»  N.  Y.  Act  of  May  11,  1784,  205  were  entitled  to  land.    P.  L.  I., 
28.  »id.  878. 

*  J.    IV.,    660.  «  April  7,  1798,  ch.  26. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  289 

ices,  sacrifices  and  sufferings1,  in  consequence  of 
their  attachment  to  the  cause  of  the  United  States." 
Two  years  were  allowed  for  the  presentation  of 
the  claims,  and  those  not  submitted  would  be 
barred. 

On  May  8,  1800,  the  officials  reported  that  they 
had  examined  73  claims,  and  recommended  that 
33,850  acres  be  granted  to  49  individuals.7  In 
these  cases  they  had  deducted  any  land  received 
from  New  York,  and  12  of  the  rejected  claims 
were  considered  already  compensated  by  that  State. 
The  donations  suggested  by  them  ranged  from 
2,000  to  100  acres. 

Gallatin,  chairman  of  the  House  committee,  re- 
ported that,  as  the  proposed  grants  were  consid- 
erably less  than  had  been  expected,  and  as  the 
claimants  had  waited  almost  twenty  years  for  the 
promised  compensation,  it  would  be  well  to  in- 
crease the  grants.  This  was  done  by  the  Act  of 
1801,  which  named  49  grantees  as  the  recipient  of 
from  2,240  to  160  acres.8  The  reserve  was  to  be 
set  apart  on  the  southern  boundary  of  the  military 
tract.  So  at  last  the  ancient  promise  was  to  be 
fulfilled. 

In  1803  an  attempt  was  made  to  include  the 
refugees  from  West  Florida  in  the  provisions  of 
the  grant,  but  without  effect.9  In  that  year  Sam- 
uel Rogers,  whose  claim  had  been  postponed  for 
lack  of  evidence,  was  granted  2,240  acres.  It  now 

7  P.    L.    I.,    106-7.  »  Annals,   1802-3,  592. 

s  Feb.  18,  1801,  ch.  5.    43,040  acres  in  all. 


290  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

became  evident  that  a  number  of  deserving  claim- 
ants had  failed  to  present  their  evidence  within  the 
two  years  provided  by  the  Act  of  1798.  To  afford 
justice  to  them  the  act  was  revived  for  two  years, 
in  1804,  and  another  two-year  period  was  granted 
in  1810.10 

Under  these  acts  12,720  acres  were  granted  to 
17  people  in  1812. n  Four  years  later  the  unap- 
propriated lands  were  restored  to  the  public  do- 
main and  attached  to  the  Chillicothe  land  office.12 
The  sufferings  of  the  Canadian  refugees  had  been 
in  part  recompensed  by  58,000  acres,  granted 
twenty-five  or  thirty  years  after  their  original  serv- 
ice or  sacrifice.  Once  again  the  terms  of  the  acts 
were  extended,  and  in  1834  the  heirs  of  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  Richard  Livingston  received  six  hundred 
and  forty  acres.13 

Christian  Indians  in  Ohio 
The  second  special  grant  of  the  Old  Congress 
was,  however,  the  first  to  be  carried  out.14  It  was 
made  in  favor  of  the  Christian  Indians  in  Ohio 
who  had  been  under  the  instruction  of  the  Mora- 
vian missionaries  since  the  establishment  of  their 
settlements  on  the  Muskingum  in  1772.  When 
Congress  was*  petitioned  to  make  a  grant  in  their 
favor  they  were  the  objects  of  general  pity,  for  in 
1782,  during  the  fierce  border  warfare,  a  number 

10  March  16,  1804,  ch.  23.     Feb.  24,  1810,  ch.  12. 

11  April  23,    1812,    ch.    63.  « June  27,  1834. 
"April  29,   1816,  ch.   153.              "King,  Ohio,   119-160. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  291 

of  these  harmless  Christian  Indians  had  been  bru- 
tally massacred  by  some  frontier  levies,  and  the 
settlements  broken  up.  With  the  approaching  sale 
of  Western  lands  it  was  necessary  that  the  im- 
provements at  the  three  villages  be  secured  in  some 
way,  and  as  a  partial  compensation  for  the  wrongs 
inflicted  by  the  American  forces  it  was  provided 
in  the  Ordinance  of  1785  that  the  land  about  the 
villages  should  be  reserved  for  the  sole  use  of  the 
Christian  Indians.  This  indefinite  reservation  of 
1785  was  made  more  definite  in  1787,  when  the 
Ohio  Company's  purchase  was  under  considera- 
tion. At  that  time  10,000  acres  adjoining  the  three 
towns  of  Gnadenhutten,  Schoenbrun,  and  Salem 
were  to  be  reserved.15  The  next  year  it  was  agreed 
to  estimate  each  of  the  townsites  at  666§  acres  and 
the  adjacent  reserves  at  3,333  J  acres,  in  this  way 
making  each  tract  equal  4,000  acres.16  The  sur- 
veys were  to  have  been  made  under  this  resolution, 
but  another  act  in  1796  was  necessary.  The  patent 
for  the  land  was  granted  on  February  24,  1798.17 
All  went  well  with  the  Moravian  settlements  for 
a  few  years.  The  three  reservations  fell  within  the 
military  district,  and  after  1800  this  region  was 
rapidly  peopled.  The  contact  with  the  white  set- 
tlers had  a  deplorable  effect  upon  the  Indians, 
until  finally  the  missionaries  felt  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  remove  their  wards  from  temptation.  By 
1823  about  150  of  the  Indians  had  removed  to 

is  J.  IV.,  app.  18.  ie  J.  IV.,  862. 

IT  P.  L.  III.,  531. 


292  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

Fairfield,  Canada,  and  only  20  or  so  remained  in 
Ohio.18  At  that  time  the  Moravians  petitioned  to 
be  relieved  of  their  trust  by  a  retrocession  of  the 
reserves  to  the  United  States1.  An  act  of  that 
year 19  authorized  the  President  to  undertake  meas- 
ures for  purchasing  the  rights  of  the  Indians,  and 
under  it  Governor  Lewis  Cass1,  of  Michigan  Ter- 
ritory, was  appointed  to  negotiate.  He  entered 
into  an  agreement  with  the  agent  of  the  Moravians 
and  with  the  descendants  and  representatives  of 
the  Christian  Indians  which  was  ratified  by  Con- 
gress in  1824.20  This  provided  that  the  12,000 
acres  be  retroceded  to  the  United  States,  with  the 
exception  of  the  church  lots,  graveyards,  and  par- 
sonages. In  consideration  of  the  expenses  incurred 
by  the  society  it  was  agreed  to  pay  it  $6,654.25  out 
of  the  proceeds  of  the  first  land  sales.  Preemption 
was  granted  the  lessees  of  land,  and  provision  was 
made  for  purchasing  certain  improvements  made 
under  lease.  As  for  the  Indians,  they  were  to  re- 
ceive an  annuity  of  $400  as  soon  as  the  land  sales 
amounted  to  enough  to  produce  that  sum  at  six 
per  cent.  This  annuity  was  to  be  paid  as  long  as 
the  Indians  remained  in  Canada;  should  they  de- 
sire to  remove  to  the  United  States,  a  reservation 
of  24,000  acres  would  be  set  apart  for  them,  and 
with  the  removal  to  the  reservation  the  annuity 
would  cease. 

Under  the  Act  of  1824  the  tracts  were  surveyed 

i«  P.  L.   III.,  615.  "  March  3,  1823. 

20  p.  L.  III.,  714-6.     May  26,  1824,  ch.  1T4. 


SPECIAL   GRANTS    OF    LAND  293 

and  valued.  One  thirty-sixth  part  of  each  tract 
was  set  apart  for  schools.  The  remaining  land, 
after  the  preemptions  had  been  claimed,  was  placed 
on  sale  at  auction  at  New  Philadelphia  and  the 
residue  attached  to  the  Zanesville  land  office. 

The  Dohrman  Grant 

The  last  special  grant  under  the  old  Congress 
contained  several  interesting  features.  Of  all  the 
debts  incurred  during  the  Revolutionary  struggle 
this  was  the  only  one  to  be  directly  paid  in  land, 
and  it  is  indeed  remarkable  that,  at  a  time  when 
the  government  was  practically  penniless1,  yet  in 
possession  of  a  vast  amount  of  fertile  land,  more 
of  the  outstanding  obligations  were  not  met  in  this 
way. 

Arnold  Henry  Dohrman  had  been  agent  of  the 
United  States  at  Lisbon  during  the  Revolution, 
and  during  his  service  there  he  had  advanced 
money  liberally  for  the  relief  of  American  seamen 
and  prisoners  in  that  port.21  At  the  close  of  the 
war  he  memorialized  Congress-  for  a  reimburse- 
ment of  these  expenditures,  and  in  1787  it  was  re- 
solved to  make  a  payment  of  $5,806  72/90  for  spe- 
cific disbursements.22  But  in  addition  he  claimed 
$20,277  40/90,  the  vouchers  for  which  were  too 
general  to  be  admitted,  although  the  fact  was  not 
disputed.  In  consideration  of  his  "  faithful  and 
generous  services  "  it  was  agreed  to  pay  him  $1,600 
per  annum  from  the  commencement  of  his  public 

21  See  Annals,  1816-7,  pp.  1227-42.     22  Oct.  1,  1787.    J.  IV.,  783. 


294  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

expenditures  to  the  date  of  the  resolution,  and  in 
addition  to  grant  him  one  township  of  land  in  the 
"three  last  ranges  surveyed,"  subject  to  the  usual 
reservations.  Deducting  the  five  reserved  sections, 
the  township  would  net  19,840  acres,  which  at  the 
existing  price  of  $1.00  an  acre  would  almost  meet 
the  principal  of  the  debt  due  him.  But,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  it  was  not  possible  at  that  time  to  sell 
the  township  for  anything  like  $20,000  in  specie. 

Dohrman  sent  an  agent  to  select  a  township  for 
him,  and  acting  on  his  advice  he  applied  for  the 
thirteenth  township  in  the  seventh  range.  A  pat- 
ent for  this  issued  in  1801.  The  whole  question 
of  the  services  of  Dohrman  and  his  remuneration 
came  up  in  1816,  when  his  widow  petitioned  Con- 
gress for  aid.  She  showed  that  her  husband  had 
been  very  unfortunate  in  the  choice  of  his  grant. 
As  one  person  described  it :  "  The  whole  of  the 
township  is  hilly,  broken  with  gullies,  remote  from 
settlement  or  improvement,  and  would  not  now 
command  $10,000  at  a  public  sale."  23  Dohrman 
died  in  1813,  leaving  a  widow  and  eleven  minor 
children.  Congress  listened  to  the  widow's  appeal 
and  granted  her  a  pension  of  $300.00  per  annum, 
and  $100  for  each  child  until  it  reached  21  years.24 

Aside  from  the  fact  that  the  Dohrman  grant 
was  a  payment  in  land  of  an  existing  obligation, 

23  Annals,    1816-7,    1240. 

a*  Twenty  years  later  the  heirs  petitioned  for  a  grant  of  the  four 
reserved  sections  in  the  township,  on  the  ground  that  their  father 
did  not  understand  that  any  such  reserves  were  to  be  held  there. 
Congress  waived  its  right  in  1833. 


SPECIAL   GRANTS    OF    LAND  295 

it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  Congress  believed  a 
land  payment  could  be  made  while  a  money  pay- 
ment would  be  improper.  This  belief  has  always 
persisted  in  Congress,  and  the  Dohrman  grant  was 
its  first  expression.  It  is  a  constant  source  of  won- 
der that  more  grants  of  this  nature  were  not  made, 
when  land  was  plentiful  and  demands  were  urgent. 

Special  Grants,  1789-1820 
The  first  special  grant  under  the  new  Congress 
was  made  in  1795  in  favor  of  the  French  settlers 
at  Gallipolis,  a  discussion  of  which  may  be  found 
in  chapter  three.  This  was  followed  in  the  next 
year  by  a  grant  of  preemption  to  Ebenezer  Zane, 
builder  of  "  Zane's  trace  "  from  Wheeling  to  Lime- 
stone. Some  of  the  early  endeavors  to  secure  lands 
on  special  terms  have  been  considered.  At  this  time 
Congress  insisted  upon  maintaining  the  general 
system.  The  next  special  grant,  therefore,  was  of 
an  exceptional  nature. 

Isaac  Zane  had  been  captured  by  the  Wyandot 
Indians  when  a  boy  of  nine  years;  he  had  grown 
up  with  them  and  had  married  an  Indian  woman.25 
His  Indian  friends  had  given  him  a  tract  four  miles 
square  at  the  Big  Bottom,  on  Mad  River,  in  Ohio, 
and  it  was  not  thought  that  his  lands  would  fall 
on  the  American  side  of  the  Greeneville  treaty  line, 
as  had  turned  out  to  be  the  case.  In  1799  some  of 
the  chiefs  told  Governor  St.  Clair  that  they  desired 
the  tract  might  be  set  apart  for  Zane.  In  view  of 

25  p.  L.  I.,  93,  181. 


296  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

these  facts  Congress  granted  him  three  sections  of 
land  in  fee-simple  which  he  might  locate  on  any 
of  the  public  lands  in  the  Northwest,  but  two  of 
the  sections  were  to  be  held  in  trust  for  his  chil- 
dren.26 This  grant  was  based  largely  upon  the 
services  rendered  by  Zane  to  American  prisoners 
and  in  furnishing  information  of  the  movements 
of  the  Indians. 

At  the  same  time  a  very  similar  case  was  under 
consideration,  although  it  was  not  determined  until 
1807.  This  was  the  request  of  George  Ash  that  he 
be  allowed  to  accept  a  grant  from  the  Indians  of 
land  still  remaining  within  their  boundaries.  He, 
too,  had  been  captured  by  the  Indians  and  had  re- 
mained with  them  until  1795.  In  this  time  he  had 
won  their  good  will,  and  certain  chiefs  of  the  Del- 
aware and  Shawnee  tribes  were  willing  to  grant 
him  a  tract  of  land  on  the  Ohio  opposite  the  mouth 
of  the  Kentucky  River.27  In  1802  a  committee  of 
the  House  reported  in  favor  of  allowing  him  to  ac- 
cept a  mile  square  from  the  Indians,  although  the 
general  principle  of  grants  from  the  Indians  to 
individuals  was  not  approved.  No  action  was 
taken  on  this  report,  whereupon  Ash  proceeded  to 
settle  on  the  land  and  continued  to  request  a  con- 
firmation of  the  grant.  In  1806  his  memorial  was 
rejected,  but  in  1807  it  was  decided  to  grant  him 
a  preemption  to  640  acres,  including  his  improve- 
ments. This  was  the  last  Indian  grant  to  receive 
any  favorable  treatment  from  Congress.  It  was  a 

2«  April  8,  1802.     P.  L.  I,  256.  27  p.  L.  I.,  122,  257,  584. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  297 

well-established  principle  that  all  grants  or  pur- 
chases of  land  from  the  Indians  must  be  executed 
under  the  authority  of  the  United  States.  When 
George  Rogers  Clark,  in  1805,  asked  for  the  con- 
firmation of  a  grant  of  two  and  a  half  leagues  from 
the  Piankishaw  Indians  in  1779  his  petition  was 
denied.28 

Before  the  Ash  preemption  was  finally  allowed, 
Congress  had  for  the  first  time  favorably  recog- 
nized a  special  industry.  This  was  the  Act 
of  1802  for  the  encouragement  of  the  culture  of 
the  vine  to  the  extent  of  allowing  four  sections  of 
land  to  be  purchased  on  eleven  and  a  half  years' 
credit,  without  interest.  These  terms,  allowed 
John  James  Dufour  and  his  associates,  were  so 
much  more  favorable  than  the  ones  on  which  the 
other  public  lands  were  sold  that  other  applica- 
tions were  soon  presented.  Some  of  these  have  a 
special  interest,  notably  the  request  for  townships 
on  special  terms  where  the  New  England  system 
of  "  township-planting  "  might  be  carried  out.  In 
1804  and  1805  applications  of  this  sort  were  pre- 
sented by  citizens  of  Vermont,  but  no  action  was 
taken.29  The  next  year  Francis  Menissier,  who 
had  been  experimenting  with  grape  growing  near 
Cincinnati  for  six  years  past,  requested  a  section 
of  land  on  an  extended  credit.  In  reporting  his 
petition  unfavorably  the  House  committee  took  the 
stand  that  a  grant  of  this  kind  would  in  reality  be 
a  bounty,  and  that  the  fact  that  land  instead  of 

28  P.   L.   I.,  247.  20  Annals,  1803-4,  1053,  id.  1804-5,  700,  872. 


298  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

money  was  desired  did  not  alter  the  case,  "  if  we 
would  not  give  the  former,  we  ought  to  withhold 
the  latter." 80  If  this  view  of  the  case  had  prevailed 
in  1802  the  grant  to  Dufour  would  never  have 
been  made. 

The  whole  question  of  making  special  terms,  was 
fought  out  at  the  same  session  when  the  Senate 
passed  a  bill  allowing  a  twelve  year  credit  for  a 
township  of  land  to  the  Harmony  Society  of  Penn- 
sylvania.31 This  society  proposed  to  settle  about 
3000  Wurtemburg  Lutherans,  fleeing  from  oppres- 
sion, in  Indiana  Territory  where  they  would  culti- 
vate the  vine.  In  the  House  the  grant  was  ques- 
tioned and  a  warm  debate  ensued.  In  its  favor  the 
following  arguments  were  urged:  the  settlement 
would  be  for  the  good  of  the  community;  a  prece- 
dent had  been  established  in  the  Dufour  grant; 
it  was  better  to  give  land  away  than  to  allow  it  to 
remain  idle ;  the  colony  would  increase  the  value  of 
the  surrounding  lands;  the  land  was  not  worth  the 
asked  price  anyhow ;  no  township  had  yet  been  sold 
for  $46,000;  and  finally  it  would  be  a  humane  act. 
In  reply  it  was  urged:  why  oblige  foreigners  in- 
stead of  our  own  countrymen?  Why  deviate  from 
the  established  system  of  selling  lands?  All  Eu- 
rope is  full  of  oppressed  people,  will  not  this  be  a 
bad  precedent  ?  It  will  be  bad  to  have  a  large  body 
of  foreigners  compactly  settled ;  why  not  allow  our 
soldiers  of  the  Revolution  to  buy  lands  on  these 
terms,  which  amount  to  only  .97  an  acre?  Finally, 

sop.   L.   I.,  256-7.  «i  Annals,    1805-6,    463-6. 


SPECIAL   GRANTS    OF    LAND  299 

it  is  not  for  the  common  benefit,  and  it  violates, 
therefore,  the  compact  with  Virginia. 

Various  amendments  to  the  measure  were  made 
but  the  bill  was  finally  defeated  by  the  casting  vote 
of  the  Speaker.  The  discussion  is  worthy  of  note 
because  it  contained  most  of  the  arguments  used 
for  or  against  these  grants.  The  defeat  of  the 
measure  served  as  a  precedent  for  the  next  eleven 
years.  At  the  next  session  the  request  of  inhab- 
itants of  Ovid,  New  York,  for  a  township  on  spe- 
cial terms  was  denied,32  and  in  1810  a  similar  re- 
quest by  the  Society  of  La  Trappe,  in  Illinois, 
failed.33  , 

In  the  meanwhile  Dufour  and  his  associates  had 
located  2500  acres  in  the  Cincinnati  district  and 
proceeded  to  raise  grapes  and  make  wine  with  vary- 
ing success.34  The  payment  of  $5000  without  in- 
terst  was  not  due  until  January  1st,  1814,  but  in 
1806  Dufour  realized  the  hopelessness  of  making  a 
payment  at  that  time  and  petitioned  for  an  ex- 
tension of  the  credit.  Congress  saw  no  reason  for 
acting  so  prematurely,  but  in  1813  the  associates 
stated  that  unless  their  credit  was  extended  they 
would  have  to  forfeit  the  land.  This-  petition  was 
favorably  considered  at  a  time  when  relief  acts 
were  in  order  so  an  additional  credit  of  five  years 
was  allowed,  until  January  1st,  1819.  By  that  time 
it  was  hoped  the  vines  would  be  productive  and  the 
wine  industry  well  established. 

32  Dec.   1806.     P.  L.   I.,  288.  »s  Annals,  1809-10,  612. 

34  p.  L.  II,  744. 


300  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

In  order  to  follow  out  the  history  of  the  first 
vine-growers'  grant  and  the  contemporary  petitions 
that  failed,  the  order  of  events  has  been  broken. 
Between  1802  and  1815  only  four  special  grants 
were  made  and  in  each  case  they  were  but  develop- 
ments of  existing  laws.  This  statement  alone  would 
show  how  carefully  the  public  lands  were  managed 
during  the  period.  One  of  these  acts,  the  preemp- 
tion to  George  Ash,  granted  in  1807,  has  already 
been  discussed.  Another,  the  grant  of  11,520  acres 
to  General  Lafayette  in  1803  might  be  considered 
a  Revolutionary  bounty,  were  it  not  for  the  size  of 
the  grant.  Under  the  bounty  resolutions  a  Major- 
General  was  entitled  to  1100  acres,  but  as  Lafay- 
ette had  never  been  attached  to  any  particular 
"  Line  "  he  had  failed  to  receive  any  land.  When 
it  was  proposed  to  remedy  this  omission  it  was 
suggested  that  he  be  considered  as  on  the  Virginia 
Line,  as  he  had  served  most  in  that  state,  and  as 
Virginia  had  allowed  her  Major- Generals  15,000 
acres  it  would  be  proper  for  Congress  to  now  do 
the  same.  Such  a  bill  passed  the  House,  but  the 
Senate  reduced  the  grant  to  11,520  acres,  over 
10,000  acres  more  than  any  other  Major- General 
had  received  from  Congress.  It  is  on  this  account 
that  the  grant  must  be  considered  a  special  one, 
based  on  the  exceptional  services  of  General  La- 
fayette, rather  than  a  military  bounty.35  Under 
the  act  the  lands  were  to  be  located  northwest  of 
the  Ohio,  but  later  legislation  permitted  their  loca- 

35  Annals,  1802-3,  569,  582-4.     March  3,  1803,  ch.  30. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  301 

tion  west  of  the  Mississippi,  where  some  of  the 
lands  were  located  on  older  grants,  necessitating 
their  removal,  under  an  Act  of  1845.  At  the  time 
of  his  visit  to  the  United  States  in  1824  a  further 
grant  of  $200,000  and  a  township  of  land  was  made 
in  consideration  of  his  "services  and  sacrifices" 
during  the  Revolution.36 

Another  special  grant,  easily  understood,  was 
that  in  favor  of  the  members  of  the  Lewis  and 
Clarke  exploring  expedition  to  the  Pacific  north- 
west in  1803-6.  This  act  of  March  3rd,  1807, 
granted  1600  acres  to  Meriwether  Lewis  and  Wil- 
liam Clarke  respectively,  and  320  acres  to  each  of 
their  thirty-one  men.  In  addition  they  received 
double  pay  during  their  service.  It  is  of  interest 
to  note  that  this  was  the  only  exploring  expedition 
to  be  rewarded  in  terms  of  land. 

The  last  grant  in  this  sub-period  was  made  in 
1811  to  John  Eugene  Leitensdorfer.37  For  his 
services  as  Inspector-General  and  Chief  Engineer 
in  the  war  with  Tripoli  320  acres  were  granted. 
This  was  the  only  land  grant  made  for  services  in 
this  war  until  the  general  bounty  act  of  1855. 

At  this  session  of  Congress  President  Monroe 
sent  down  a  very  important  veto  message  dealing 
with  a  special  grant.38  It  seemed  that  the  Baptist 
Society  at  Salem,  Mississippi,  had  built  their  meet- 
ing-house on  government  land  because  of  its  con- 
venient location.  The  only  way  they  could  secure 

»«  Dec.  28,  1824.  8T  Feb.   13,   1811,  ch.   12. 

ss  Misc.    II.,    11,    154. 


302  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

the  land  was  at  open  sale,  when  the  minimum  tract 
— at  that  time  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres- 
would  have  to  be  purchased,  and  it  was  possible 
that  the  society  might  be  out-bid  by  others.  It 
seems  as  if  these  difficulties  could  have  been  pro- 
vided for,  especially  as  they  were  understood  at  the 
time  the  church  was  built,  but  the  simplest  solution 
was  to  ask  Congress  for  a  donation.39  Jeremiah 
Morrow,  the  zealous  guardian  of  the  public  lands, 
objected  to  a  grant  of  land  but  favored  the  reser- 
vation from  sale  of  five  acres  for  the  use  of  the 
society.  Such  a  provision  was  incorporated  in  a 
relief  bill  covering  several  claims  which  passed  both 
Houses,  but  President  Monroe  vetoed  it  on  March 
2,  1811,  on  the  ground  that  it  "comprises  a  prin- 
ciple and  precedent  for  the  appropriation  of  funds 
of  the  United  States  for  the  use  and  support  of 
religious  societies,  contrary  to  the  article  of  the 
Constitution  which  declares  that  Congress  shall 
make  no  law  respecting  a  religious  establishment.40 
The  bill  could  not  be  passed  over  his  veto,  so  the 
church  clause  was  stricken  out.  The  importance 
of  this  veto  can  hardly  be  over-estimated.  If  the 
bill  had  become  a  precedent  it  would  have  resulted 
in  constant  applications  for  public  lands  for  the  use 
of  churches,  mission  houses,  and  other  religious 
purposes,  and  if  the  Baptists  in  Mississippi  had 
secured  their  grant  it  would  have  been  difficult  to 
deny  an  equal  privilege  to  the  representatives  of 
other  churches  throughout  the  West. 

39  P.  L.   I.,  104.  *o  Annals,  1810-11,  366. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  803 

EARTHQUAKE  SUFFERERS  AT  NEW  MADRID,  MO. 

Of  all  the  special  grants  made  by  a  generous 
Congress  one  of  the  most  unique  was  undoubtedly 
that  which  allowed  persons  whose  lands  had  been 
damaged  by  the  great  earthquakes  in  Missouri  of 
1811  and  1812  to  exchange  their  holdings  for 
others  in  the  public  domain.  And  the  operation  of 
this  act  shows  plainly  how  the  generosity  was 
abused  until  it  became  a  crying  scandal. 

The  earthquakes  had  caused  considerable  dam- 
age in  southern  Missouri,  and  the  villages  of  New 
Madrid  and  Little  Prairie  had  been  seriously  in- 
jured. In  some  places  the  land  surface  had  been 
altered,  great  fissures  were  reported,  and  lakes  had 
appeared,  but  on  the  whole  the  actual  damage  to 
the  soil  then  under  cultivation  was  very  slight.41  It 
was  easy,  however,  to  magnify  the  size  of  the 
"  chasms  "  and  to  urge  Congress  to  come  to  the 
relief  of  the  unfortunate  settlers.  While  the  bill 
was  under  consideration  in  the  House  an  endeavor 
was  made  to  kill  it  with  ridicule  by  moving  an 
amendment  to  the  effect  that  land  should  be 
granted  to  persons  who  had  sustained  damage 
through  the  great  wind  storm  in  Washington  in 
August,  1814,  but  in  spite  of  argument  and  sar- 
casm the  measure  passed.42  This  Act  of  1815  was 
an  excellent  example  of  a  carelessly  drawn  statute, 

4i  For  the  exaggerated  contempory  accounts,  see  a  compilation 
by  G.  C.  Broadhead,  "The  American  Geologist"  v.  30:76-87.  For 
the  conditions  in  1846  see  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  "Second  Visit  to  the 
United  States,"  II.,  172-182.  « Annals,  1814-5,  1073. 


304  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

and  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  it  ever  passed 
without  comment.43  It  provided  that  residents  in 
New  Madrid  County,  Missouri,  whose  lands  had 
been  "materially  injured  by  earthquakes,"  might 
locate  the  like  quantity  on  any  of  the  public  lands 
in  the  territory  "  the  sale  of  which  is  authorized  by 
law." 

And  in  this  proviso  dwelt  the  "joker":  "Pro- 
vided, that  no  person  shall  be  permitted  to  locate  a 
greater  quantity  of  land  under  this  act  than  the 
quantity  confirmed  to  him,  (as  a  foreign  grant) 
except  the  owners  of  lots  of  ground  or  tracts  of 
land  of  less-  quantity  than  one  hundred  and  sixty 
acres,  who  are  hereby  authorized  to  locate  and 
obtain  any  quantity  of  land  not  exceeding  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  acres,  nor  shall  any  person  be  en- 
titled to  locate  more  than  six  hundred  and  forty 
acres,  nor  shall  any  such  location  include  any  lead 
mine  or  salt  spring."  When  a  new  location  was 
made  the  damaged  land  vested  in  the  United  States. 
The  Recorder  of  Land  Titles  for  Missouri  was  to 
pass  upon  the  claims  and  issue  certificates;  these 
certificates  entitled  the  holder  to  a  survey  of  his 
location  and  eventually  to  a  patent  if  they  were 
filed  with  the  Recorder  within  twelve  months. 

Under  this  act,  therefore,  it  would  be  possible 
for  an  earthquake  sufferer  to  exchange  a  town  lot 
of  one  or  two  acres  for  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres, 
while  if  he  held  over  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  it 
would  be  unwise  to  change,  unless  he  could  turn  in 

«  Feb.  17,  1815,  ch.  45. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  305 

waste  land  and  locate  excellent  lieu  land.  The  pro- 
vision regarding  surveys  also  created  the  impres- 
sion that  the  claims  could  be  located  on  any  public 
land  even  before  it  was  surveyed  although  the  sale 
of  such  land  was  not  authorized.  This  belief  was 
strengthened  because  for  claims  between  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  and  six  hundred  and  forty  acres 
only  the  exact  amount  of  the  damaged  land  could 
be  relocated,  but  the  land  system  did  not  admit 
of  sales  of  less  than  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres. 
Would  a  person  entitled  to  two  hundred  acres  re- 
ceive one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  or  three  hundred 
and  twenty  acres — for  no  intermediate  divisions 
were  recognized,  save  in  the  case  of  fractional  sec- 
tions? Finally,  were  the  relocations  designed  only 
for  the  original  sufferers  or  could  persons  holding 
under  them  claim  certificates? 

With  such  questions  of  interpretation  raised  it 
was  then  a  question  of  administration.  The  Re- 
corder at  St.  Louis  took  the  most  favorable  view 
possible.  Some  five  hundred  and  sixteen  certificates 
were  issued  and  three  hundred  and  eighty-two  were 
eventually  allowed.  Of  these  one  hundred  and 
forty-nine  called  for  more  land  than  was  relin- 
quished, and  in  almost  every  one  of  these  cases  a  lot 
of  a  few  acres  was  exchanged  for  a  full  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  acre  tract.44  In  one  hundred  and 
forty-two  cases  it  is  said,  relinquishment  was  not 
valid,  and  persons  owning  no  land  received  certi- 

«  P.  L.  IV.,  39-47.     One  person  ceded  four  small  lots  and  secured 
four  160  acre  tracts. 


306  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

ficates.45  And  in  most  cases  the  holders  of  certi- 
ficates proceeded  to  locate  them  on  unsurveyed 
land.  When  the  regular  surveys  were  made  it  was 
found  that  the  locations  did  not  meet  the  new  lines, 
so  that  numerous  fractional  sections  were  created. 
In  1820  William  Wirt,  the  Attorney-General,  gave 
an  opinion  to  the  effect  that  the  locations  on  un- 
surveyed lands  were  void  and  that  patents  should 
not  issue.46  These  "floating  claims"  had  been 
causing  considerable  trouble,  for  they  were  being 
located  on  land  claimed  by  preemption  and  on  land 
held  under  unconfirmed  private  claims.47  Congress 
was  unwilling  to  nullify  the  existing  locations,  so  in 
1 822  they  were  ratified,  although  future  New  Ma- 
drid locations  were  to  conform  to  the  sectional 
lines.  Moreover  the  warrants  were  to  be  located 
within  a  year  after  that  date.48 

The  next  year  Mr.  Sloo,  the  special  examiner  of 
the  land  offices,  reported  that  a  tribunal  should  be 
established  for  the  immediate  and  final  adjustment 
of  these  claims.  "I  will  venture  to  say  that  the 
New  Madrid  law,  as  it  is  termed,  has  given  rise  to 
more  fraud  and  more  downright  villainy  than  any 
law  ever  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  ...  In  many  instances,  I  am  informed, 
fraudulent  relinquishments  have  been  made,  and 
certificate  obtained,  by  persons  who  had  not  the 
shadow  of  a  claim  to  the  land  surrendered  and  the 

45  Only  20  were  located  by  original  claimants.     One  person  held 
33  certificates.     Carr,   Missouri,   111.  47 Annals,  1816-7,  771. 

«o  p.   L.    III.,   494-6.  48  April  26,  1822,  ch.  40. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  307 

tract  thus  surrendered  has  sometimes  been  covered 
by  another  Madrid  certificate,  while  the  real  owner 
continued  in  quiet  possession  of  his  property,  with- 
out the  least  idea  of  relinquishing  it.  ...  And  to 
close  the  scene,  a  great  many  of  the  persons  who 
really  did  relinquish  have  claimed  and  intend  to 
claim  the  right  of  preemption  on  the  tracts  relin- 
quished."49 

Six  acts  were  necessary  to  carry  out  the  benevo- 
lence of  Congress  toward  the  earthquake  sufferers. 
The  last  one,  in  1866,  ratified  locations  made  after 
the  final  date  set  by  the  acts  of  1822  and  1831.  It 
goes  without  saying  that  the  original  act  was  un- 
wise in  principle,  and  carelessly  drawn.  The  frauds 
arising  during  its  operation  should  have  given 
further  proof  of  the  unwisdom  of  granting  land  as 
a  benevolence  or  a  bounty. 

THE   SOCIETY   FOR   THE    CULTIVATION   OF   THE    VINE 
AND   OLIVE 

The  last  special  grant  made  before  1820  origi- 
nated in  a  most  romantic  manner,  and  ended  in  a 
succession  of  misfortunes.  It  was  designed  to  aid 
a  considerable  number  of  Napoleonic  refugees,  who 
had  fled  to  America  after  the  "  hundred  days,"  by 
establishing  them  as  cultivators  of  the  vine  and 
olive  on  the  Tombigbee  River,  in  Alabama.  It  is 
doubtful  if  a  grant  of  this  nature  could  have  been 
obtained  were  it  not  for  the  pity  excited  by  these 

«P.  L.   IV.,  47. 


SOS  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

distinguished  fugitives.50  A  Marshal  of  France, 
four  Generals  and  nine  Colonels  were  among  the 
first  shareholders  in  this  association.  But  in  1815 
the  application  of  the  New  Efagland  Emigration 
Association61  to  purchase  twenty-five  townships  on 
twelve  years'  credit,  and  to  settle  2000  persons  on 
the  land  in  that  period,  was  denied,  and  the  next 
year,  when  the  Kentucky  Abolition  Association 
prayed  for  donations  of  land  for  emancipated 
negroes  it  was-  told  that  "  we  do  not  give  lands  to 
whites,  why  to  negroes? " 52  Again,  after  1817  Con- 
gress denied  the  request  for  special  terms  presented 
by  certain  Swiss  and  Irish  emigrants,  and  by  the 
"  Coffee  Land  Association."  These  facts  are  noted 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  unusual  was  the 
grant  for  the  French  refugees  and  how  incon- 
sistent. 

In  the  latter  part  of  1816  and  throughout  the 
next  year  the  refugees  were  arriving  at  our  ports, 
first  in  importance  being  Joseph  Bonaparte,  late 
King  of  Spain.  Toward  the  end  of  1816  it  was 
proposed  to  form  an  association  for  placing  some 
of  these  exiles  upon  the  land  as  cultivators  of 
the  vine  and  olive.  A  suitable  tract  was  decided 
upon  in  the  recent  Creek  Cession  in  Alabama,  and 
favorable  terms  were  asked  from  Congress.  The 
grant  was  obtained  after  some  discussion. 

The  act  of  March  3,   1817,  was  another  ex- 

60  Reeves,  The  Napoleonic  Exiles  in  America.     J.  H.  U.  Studies, 
XXIII.,  numbers  9-10. 

BI  P.  L.  II.,  898.  B2  Annals,    1815-6,   691. 


SPECIAL   GRANTS    OF    LAND 

ample  of  a  badly  framed  statute.  It  provided  for 
the  sale  of  four  townships  in  Alabama  to  the  agents 
of  the  French  emigrants  at  $2.00  per  acre,  payable 
in  fourteen  years.  There  must  be  at  least  one  emi- 
grant of  full  age  for  each  half  section  in  the  grant, 
and  no  patent  would  issue  until  the  whole  tract  was 
finally  paid  for,  nor  would  more  than  640  acres  be 
granted  to  any  one  person.  Some  of  the  associates 
protested  against  the  clause  withholding  the  patent 
until  all  the  land  was  paid  for,  preferring  individ- 
ual patents,  but  the  provision  was  inserted  in  order 
to  encourage  the  general  development  and  to  pre- 
vent the  relinquishment  of  any  poor  land.53 

It  was  not  until  November,  1817,  that  a  list  of 
emigrants  was  presented  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and  as  350  names  were  enrolled  he  gave 
instructions  that  the  surveys  be  made.54  In  Decem- 
ber about  150  emigrants  sailed  from  Philadelphia 
and  a  larger  number  followed  in  April.  Their 
first  townsite,  Demopolis,  was  later  found  to  be 
on  the  public  lands  so  it  became  necessary  to  lay 
out  the  new  town  of  Aigleville.  This  was  but  the 
first  of  many  misfortunes.  The  conditions  of  life 
on  the  frontier  were  hard  and  few  were  trained  to 
manual  labor.55  At  first  there  were  no  vines,  and 
after  some  were  procured  from  France  they  were 
not  entirely  successful.  The  frosts  killed  the  olive 
trees  to  the  roots.  Most  of  the  shareholders  re- 

63  P.  L.   III.,  435.  64  p.  L.  III.,  387. 

66  They  paid  $4  to  $5  a  bushel  for  corn.     A  cow  and  calf  cost  $40 
to  $50.     P.  L.  V.,  14. 


310  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

fused  to  adventure  into  the  wilderness,  and  many 
of  the  actual  settlers  were  forced  to  sell  their  lands 
to  a  few  who  had  capital,  while  squatters  trespassed 
on  the  vacant  acres.  The  settlement  was  hardly 
founded  before  it  was  forced  to  call  upon  Congress 
for  relief. 

The  actual  contract  for  the  sale  of  the  land  was 
not  signed  until  January  8,  1819.  It  was  signed 
on  the  part  of  three  hundred  and  forty-seven  share- 
holders, each  entitled  to  from  forty  to  four  hun- 
dred and  eighty  acres,  with  a  proportion  of  the 
town  and  out  lots,  the  amount  depending  upon  the 
capital  invested.56  The  terms  of  the  contract  called 
for  the  payment  of  $184,320  on  or  before  January 
8, 1833.  This  was  a  rather  heavy  payment  to  expect 
from  a  body  of  refugees  engaged  in  introducing 
new  cultures  in  a  wilderness.  The  contract  further 
called  for  a  settlement  on  each  of  the  allotted  tracts 
within  three  years,  and  for  the  cultivation  of  ten 
acres  in  each  one  hundred  and  sixty  in  the  aggre- 
gate within  fourteen  years.  As  to  the  vine,  there 
must  be  one  acre  in  each  one  hundred  and  sixty, 
taken  aggregately,  under  cultivation  within  seven 
years,  and  within  the  same  time  there  must  be  at 
least  five  hundred  olive  trees  planted  within  the 
whole  tract,  unless  it  was  shown  that  the  olive  tree 
could  not  be  grown  there. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  such  a  contract  could 
not  be  carried  out  under  the  circumstances,  and 

88  P.  L.  V.,  23.    No  school  sections  were  reserved.    The  land  act  of 
1890  rendered  these  terms  most  unfavorable. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  311 

yet,  should  one  shareholder  fail  to  comply  with  the 
conditions  it  would  jeopardize  the  interests  of  all 
the  others. 

Within  a  year  after  the  contract  was  signed  some 
of  the  settlers  prayed  that  the  terms  might  be 
altered  so  that  individuals  complying  with  the 
conditions  might  obtain  titles,  but  Secretary  Craw- 
ford was  opposed.57  He  was  willing  to  waive  the 
condition  of  a  settlement  on  each  allotment  and 
thought  that  if  the  whole  number  of  settlements 
equaled  the  number  of  half  sections  it  would  suffice, 
but  an  act  of  Congress  was  necessary  to  change  the 
contract. 

In  1822,  it  was  shown  that  eighty-one  settlers 
had  under  direct  cultivation  or  on  lease  2600  acres, 
but  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  ever  carry  out  the 
terms  of  the  original  act  and  contract.58  Congress, 
therefore,  permitted  those  settlers  who  had  individ- 
ually complied  with  the  contract  and  had  paid  their 
share  of  the  purchase  money,  to  secure  patents  for 
their  holdings.59 

This  act  afforded  some  relief,  but  it  did  not  go 
far  enough.  It  applied  to  the  original  grantees  or 
their  heirs  or  devisees,  but  did  not  include  their 
assigns.  Under  the  act  an  agent  of  the  Treasury 
Department  was  sent  in  1826  to  report  on  the 
actual  situation  on  the  Tombigbee.  His  report 
shows  how  miserably  the  settlement  had  failed.60 
Of  the  three  hundred  and  forty-seven  shareholders 

«  P.  L.  III.,  435.  <»>  April  26,  1822,  ch.  33. 

6«  P.  L.  III.,  536.  «»  P.  L.  V.,  14-28. 


812  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

only  seventeen  had  complied  with  the  terms  of  the 
contract  and  in  one  hundred  and  eight  cases  no  per- 
formance at  all  had  taken  place.  Forty-four  other 
tracts  had  been  settled  by  the  grantees  or  their 
agents  but  some  of  these  had  since  been  sold  and  in 
others  the  conditions  as  to  the  vines  were  not  car- 
ried out.  In  one  hundred  and  thirty-three  cases 
the  tracts  had  been  sold  before  any  settlement  was 
attempted  and  eighteen  other  tracts  were  sold  after 
settlement.  And  the  story  was  the  same  in  the 
reserved  and  forfeited  lots  which  had  been  divided 
among  new  shareholders:  in  only  two  cases  was 
there  complete  performance,  in  forty-four  none  was 
attempted,  thirteen  had  been  sold  and  in  the  remain- 
ing seven  the  terms  were  not  complied  with.  In  the 
entire  tract  he  found  7414  acres  under  cultivation, 
but  the  most  extensive  and  profitable  farms  were 
occupied  by  Americans.  Only  two  hundred  and 
seventy  acres  had  been  planted  in  vines,  and  only 
one-tenth  of  these  in  vineyards,  the  rest  being  cul- 
tivated along  with  the  cotton.  Some  three  hundred 
olive  trees  had  been  set  out  but  they  could  not  stand 
the  frost. 

This  report  led  to  the  Act  of  1831  which  vir- 
tually gave  a  preemption  right,  at  one  dollar  and 
a  quarter  an  acre,  to  those  who  had  complied  with 
the  conditions  and  to  those  who,  failing  to  comply 
with  them  were  in  cultivation  of  the  land  at  that 
time.61  The  payments  were  to  be  made  before 
March  3rd,  1833.  Further  relief  was  granted  two. 

«i  Feb.   19,   1831,  ch.  30. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  313 

years  later62  when  cultivation  before  October  31, 
1832,  under  a  grant  or  purchase,  would  entitle  one 
to  a  preemption,  while  other  actual  settlers  at  that 
date,  who  up  to  this  time  had  been  trespassers, 
might  now  preempt  their  holdings.  The  time  of 
payment  was  further  extended  to  May  15,  1834. 
Further  legislation  was  necessary  to  quiet  the  titles 
to  four  sections  reserved  for  small  allotments,  while 
any  unclaimed  land  therein  was  to  revert  to  the 
Demopolis  Female  Academy.63 

In  this  way  another  attempt  to  relieve  distress 
worked  out  in  a  very  different  manner  from  the 
one  intended.  The  whole  vine  and  olive  scheme  was 
romantic  and  impractical  and  the  leaders  were 
more  in  their  element  in  their  wild  schemes  against 
Mexico  than  in  the  strenuous  cultivation  of  waste 
lands.  Yet  even  if  the  refugees  had  sought  to  de- 
velop their  grant  the  terms  of  the  contract  made 
success  impossible.  So,  eventually,  a  few  French 
exiles  gained  title  to  a  little  land  in  Alabama  while 
the  more  resourceful  Americans  secured  the  most 
and  the  best  of  the  acres.  The  operation  of  this 
measure  should  have  warned  Congress  against  giv- 
ing aid  to  refugees  in  terms  of  an  extended  credit. 

While  the  vine  and  olive  grant  was  in  operation 
Congress  refused  several  other  petitions  for  land 
on  special  terms.  In  1818  the  request  of  Edmund 
Dana  was  denied.64  He  represented  several  hun- 
dred purchasers  who  desired  207,500  acres  of  land, 

62  Feb.    19,   1833,  ch.  30.  es  March  2,  1837,  ch.  25. 

e*  P.  L.  III.,  301. 


314  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

the  first  payment  to  be  due  on  February  1,  1819, 
and  95,800  acres,  with  a  first  payment  on  Decem- 
ber 1,  1820.  This  was  a  very  small  concession, 
compared  with  the  extended  credit  allowed  the 
French  refugees,  but  Congress  saw  no  reason  to 
alter  the  general  system,  and  feared  to  establish 
a  precedent.  At  the  same  time  a  body  of  Swiss 
emigrants  sought  twelve  townships  on  terms  simi- 
lar to  those  granted  only  the  year  before  to  the 
French.65  They  were  told  that  they  could  scarcely 
expect  peculiar  favors  and  indulgences,  and  as  the 
request  of  several  hundred  citizens  had  been  denied 
surely  no  concession  could  be  made  to  them.  A 
few  weeks  later  an  application  for  one  township 
in  Indiana  for  the  use  of  fifty  Swiss  emigrants,  on 
ten  years  credit,  was  denied.66  It  was  at  this  session 
that  several  of  the  Irish  societies  sought  land  on 
twelve  years'  credit  for  the  use  of  their  emigrants.67 
The  question  was  warmly  discussed  in  the  House 
and  an  adverse  report  agreed  to  by  a  vote  of 
83-71.68  This  debate  showed  that  the  concession 
made  to  the  French  refugees  was  not  to  be  taken 
as  a  precedent.  A  further  attempt  to  secure  ex- 
tended credit  in  favor  of  Swiss  emigrants  was  made 
in  1820,  and  the  House  Committee  on  the  Public 
Lands  reported  that  if  any  relaxation  should  be 
made  it  should  be  in  favor  of  American  citizens.69 
At  that  session  the  cash  system  at  $1.25  an  acre 

«»  P.  L.  III.,  303.  eTMissc.  II.,  489. 

•«  P.  L.  III.,  382.  «»  Annals,   1817-8,   p.    1053. 

«»P.   L.    III.,   427. 


SPECIAL    GRANTS    OF    LAND  315 

was  introduced  which  served  to  quiet  requests  for 
extended  credit,  while  the  terms  were  so  reasonable 
that  Congress  did  not  hesitate  to  insist  upon  the 
maintenance  of  the  general  system. 

If  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  these  erratic 
grants  of  Congress  they  would  doubtless  be,  first, 
that  in  almost  every  case  the  special  grant  was 
made  without  good  reason  and  was  void  of  all  con- 
sistency, and  secondly,  that  Congress  denied  far 
more  applications  than  it  granted  and  therefore 
preserved  the  public  domain  from  direct  private 
exploitation  or  misguided  benevolence. 

SPECIAL  GRANTS  FOR  PUBLIC  PURPOSES 

From  time  to  time  Congress  made  grants  of 
land,  or  of  moneys  received  from  land,  for  public 
purposes  in  the  western  States.  These  grants  were 
quite  as  inconsistent  as  the  private  ones,  although 
rarely  was  an  application  for  land  denied  if  the  use 
was  a  good  one.  As  the  subject  is  of  little  im- 
portance a  mere  summary  of  the  legislation  will 
give  some  idea  of  this  form  of  disposition. 

The  first  of  these  acts  date  from  1806.  In  that 
year  the  proceeds  of  land  sales  in  the  new  Detroit 
town  site  were  to  be  applied  to  the  building  of  a 
court-house  and  a  jail  there.  This  assistance  seemed 
reasonable  as  the  city  had  been  burned  down  in 
1805.  At  that  session,  also,  some  land  along  the 
Mississippi  was  granted  to  Natchez  as  a  common, 
and  two  years  later  an  additional  gift  of  two  town 
lots  was  made.  In  1807,  and  again  in  1811,  the 


S16  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

claim  of  New  Orleans  to  a  common  was  confirmed, 
and  in  1812  she  was  given  the  site  of  a  pumping 
station. 

When  Indiana  Territory  asked  for  a  donation 
of  four  quarter  sections  for  the  site  of  a  capital 
Congress  took  the  position  that  such  a  grant  would 
be  a  violation  of  the  Virginia  deed  of  cession,  for 
it  would  benefit  a  particular  territory  and  not  the 
Union  as  a  whole,  so  instead  it  allowed  only  a 
preemption.70  The  same  act  authorized  a  committee 
to  purchase  640  acres  as  a  townsite  for  Giles 
County,  Tennessee.  Indiana,  however,  did  not 
have  to  buy  the  site  of  her  capital.  It  was  granted 
to  her  as  one  of  the  articles  of  compact  in  her  en- 
abling act  of  1816,  and  in  this  way  any  objection 
based  on  the  Virginia  cession  was  quieted.  Ohio  and 
Louisiana  had  obtained  no  such  grant  in  their 
enabling  acts.  However  in  that  year  Ohio  was  per- 
mitted to  sell  640  acres  of  the  Scioto  Salt  Spring 
reserve  and  use  the  proceeds  for  a  court  house  at 
Jackson  County.  Two  years  later  New  Orleans  re- 
ceived the  site  of  Fort  Charles  as  a  public  square. 

In  the  case  of  Alabama,  first  one  section  was 
reserved  for  a  seat  of  government,  in  1818,  and  this 
was  increased  to  1620  acres  in  the  enabling  act  of 
the  next  year.  But  this  was  a  direct  grant,  it  was 
not  made  one  of  the  articles  of  compact.  At  the 
same  session  Mississippi  received  two  sections 
for  a  capital — no  grant  having  been  made  in  her 
enabling  act  of  1817.  A  few  days  later  Illinois  re- 

70  p.  L.   II.,  252.     Feb.  25,   1811. 


SPECIAL   GRANTS   OF    LAND  317 

ceived  four  sections  for  the  same  purpose.  These 
grants  of  1819  were  in  contradiction  to  the  theory 
which  prevailed  in  1811. 

When  the  claims  at  Vincennes  were  finally 
settled  some  unclaimed  lots  remained.  These  were, 
in  1818,  to  be  sold  and  the  proceeds  devoted  to 
public  purposes.  The  common  also  might  be  sold 
and  the  proceeds  devoted  to  draining  a  pond  near 
the  town,  with  the  remainder  to  the  University  of 
Vincennes.  In  1820,  Ohio  was  allowed  the  pre- 
emption of  a  quarter  section  near  the  center  of 
each  of  twelve  counties  for  seats  of  justice.  This 
was  occasioned  by  the  recent  Indian  cession. 

These  grants  before  1820  are  fairly  typical  of  the 
later  developments.  Lands  were  frequently  granted 
to  towns  for  parks1,  streets,  commons  and  such  uses. 
Some  of  these  requests  were  denied  outright  and 
in  other  cases  one  House  or  the  other  would  fail  to 
act.  In  1824  a  general  act  gave  the  right  of  pre- 
emption to  one  quarter  section  to  all  counties  and 
parishes  in  the  public  land  states  for  the  location  of 
county  seats.71  Such  an  act  saved  considerable 
special  legislation.  A  later  development  was  the 
grant  of  land  for  the  erection  of  courthouses  and 
jails,  while  Arkansas  received  ten  sections  for  the 
building  of  a  capitol.  Another  development  of  the 
Thirties  was  the  appropriation  of  funds  derived 
from  sales  of  townsites  to  the  erection  of  public 
buildings  and  construction  of  wharfs.  That  it  was 
possible  to  overdo  these  applications  was  evident 

71  May  26,    1824. 


818  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

when  in  1831  the  Legislative  Council  of  the  Terri- 
tory of  Michigan  prayed  for  four  townships  of 
land  (92,160  acres)  to  promote  the  cultivation  of 
the  mulberry  tree  and  the  production  of  silk.72  Con- 
gress was  reminded  of  its  encouragement  of  special 
industries  in  Indiana  and  Alabama  but  precedents 
were  really  considered  unnecessary  for  such  a 
grant.  "Like  donations  for  like  purposes  to  the 
different  new  communities  would  more  closely  con- 
nect their  interests  with  the  interests  of  the  Atlantic 
States,  and  bind,  as  with  silken  cords,  the  extrem- 
ities of  the  Union  to  the  main  body."  It  is  a  pity 
the  Michigan  sericulturists  could  not  have  demon- 
strated their  claims  before  the  Civil  War  broke 
out. 

"P.  L.  VI.,  268-9. 


CHAPTER    XIII 

THE  SATISFACTION  OF  THE  CONDITIONS  OF  THE 
DEEDS  OF  CESSION,  1784-1802 

?'V  i 

i 

The  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  public 
domain  east  of  the  Mississippi  was  based  on  the 
cessions  of  seven  of  the  thirteen  original  states. 
But  of  those  seven  cessions  four  contained  con- 
ditions which  proved  far  more  exacting  than  either 
of  the  parties  had  at  the  time  imagined.  To  the 
credit  of  the  central  government  it  should  be 
added  that  in  every  case  Congress  tried  to  live  up 
not  only  to  the  letter  but  to  the  spirit  of  the  condi- 
tions as  it  understood  them.  And  over  one 
hundred  years  elapsed  before  the  last  Congres- 
sional legislation,  arising  from  the  deeds  of  cession, 
was  enacted. 

THE  CONNECTICUT  RESERVE 

A  question  which  was  easily  settled,  but  which 
might  have  caused  considerable  trouble,  was  that 
arising  out  of  the  Connecticut  cession.  Connecti- 
cut maintained  that  her  charter  claims  extended  to 
the  Mississippi.1  Before  the  Revolution  she  had 
been  engaged  in  a  struggle  with  Pennsylvania  over 
the  Wyoming  country  and  her  contentions  had 
been  favorably  considered  by  certain  of  the  crown 

i  Charter  of  April  23,   1662. 
319 


320  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

officers  in  England.*  In  1780,  after  the  New  York 
cession  and  the  recommendation  of  Congress  that 
all  the  States  cede  their  claims  to  western  lands, 
Connecticut  offered  to  cede  her  lands  but  would 
retain  the  jurisdiction.  This  offer  was  refused  by 
Congress.  Two  years  later  Connecticut  and  Penn- 
sylvania took  their  boundary  dispute  before  a  Fed- 
eral Court,  organized  under  the  terms  of  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  and  there,  in  a  decision 
which  gave  no  reasons,  the  claim  of  Connecticut 
was  over-ruled  and  Pennsylvania  secured  undis- 
puted possession  of  the  land  within  her  chartered 
limits.  In  1782  the  New  York  cession  was 
accepted  and  in  1784  the  cession  of  Virginia  was 
completed.  Both  these  cessions  covered  the  land 
claimed  by  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.  The 
latter  state  was  not  satisfied  with  the  decision  of  the 
Federal  Court.  Even  if  the  right  of  Pennsylvania 
to  the  land  within  her  charter  bounds  were  con- 
ceded, this,  in  itself,  was  no  reason  why  Connecticut 
should  not  still  own  the  land  further  west.  So  Con- 
necticut asserted  her  claim  to  the  land  between  the 
forty-first  and  forty-second  parallels  to  the  west  of 
Pennsylvania.  Naturally  she  desired  to  have  her 
earlier  pretensions  vindicated,  but  it  must  also  be 
remembered  that  of  all  the  states  claiming  western 
lands  Connecticut  was  the  only  one  which  did 
not  have  waste  lands  within  her  undisputed  limits. 
In  1786  Connecticut  again  offered  to  cede  her 
western  lands,  reserving  for  herself  a  strip  between 

zHinsdale     (1899),    114. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION      321 

the  forty-first  parallel  and  Lake  Erie  extending 
for  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles  from  the  Penn- 
sylvania boundary.  On  May  4,  Congress  took  up 
the  proposal3  and  William  Samuel  Johnson  ex- 
plained the  Connecticut  claim  while  William  Gray- 
son  opposed  it  on  the  ground  that  the  Quebec  Act 
had  restored  the  lands  to  England  and  "  Virginia 
had  a  right  to  what  she  conquered  with  her  own 
arms,  and  the  United  States  had  a  right  to  all  the 
rest  of  that  country  by  conquest."  On  May  26, 
Congress  voted  to  accept  the  proposed  cession  when 
properly  made. 

Because  of  their  insight  into  the  political  situ- 
ation of  the  time  two  quotations  deserve  to  be  given 
in  full.  On  May  28,  Grayson  wrote  to  Madison  as 
follows:  "The  delegation  of  our  state  was  very 
much  embarrassed  with  the  Connecticut  business, 
as  it  was  said  it  was  but  neighbor's  fare  that  Con- 
necticut should  be  treated  as  we  had  been  before 
with  respect  to  our  cession;  and  that  cessions  of 
claims  conveyed  no  right  by  implication  to  the  terri- 
tory not  ceded.  We,  however,  after  some  consider- 
ation, took  a  hostile  position  toward  her,  and  voted 
against  the  acceptance  in  every  stage  of  it;  it 
appeared  to  the  delegation  that  the  only  proper 
claim  had  already  been  vested  in  congress  by  the 
cession  of  our  state;  and  that  their  cession  was 
nothing  but  a  state  juggle  contrived  by  old  Roger 
Sherman  to  get  a  side-wind  confirmation  of  a  thing 

a  Thomas  Rodney's  Report  of  Debates  in  Congress.  Bancroft,  I., 
500. 


322  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

they  had  no  right  to.  Some  of  the  states,  particu- 
larly Pennsylvania,  voted  for  them  on  the  same 
principle  that  the  powers  of  Europe  give  money  to 
the  Algerines.  The  advocates  for  the  acceptance 
have,  however,  some  plausible  reasons  for  their 
opinions,  such  as  the  tranquillity  of  the  union;  the 
procuring  a  clear  title  to  the  residue  of  the  conti- 
nental lands;  the  forming  a  barrier  against  the 
British  as  well  as  the  Indians ;  the  appreciating  the 
value  of  the  adjacent  territory,  and  facilitating  the 
settlement  thereof. 

'  The  assembly  of  Connecticut  now  sitting  mean 
immediately  to  open  a  land  office  for  the  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  miles  westward  of  the  Connecti- 
cut line,  which  they  have  reserved;  and  I  don't  see 
what  is  to  prevent  them  from  keeping  it  always,  as 
the  federal  constitution  does  not  give  a  court  in  this 
instance;  and  a  war  with  them  would  cost  more 
than  the  six  millions  of  acres  are  worth."  4 

On  June  16,  Monroe  wrote  to  Jefferson:  "We 
have  had  generally  not  more  than  seven  states  pres- 
ent; the  only  time  that  nine  were,  their  time  was 
employed  upon  the  subject  of  the  Connecticut  ces- 
sion, which  ultimately  was  accepted,  whereby  she 
ceded  all  the  land  lying  westward  of  a  line  to  be 
drawn  westward  of  the  Pennsylvania  line  parallel 
with  the  same.  Our  state  voted  against  it  but  were 
in  sentiment  for  it.  It  is  hoped  it  will  terminate  the 
variance  respecting  the  Wyoming  settlement  by 
enabling  Connecticut  to  give  the  claimants  other 

*  Quoted  in  Bancroft,  I.,  505. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION      323 

land  in  lieu,  and  thereby  establishing  the  govern- 
ment of  Pennsylvania  in  the  benefit  of  the  decree 
of  Trenton.  Other  reasons  there  are  which  apply 
to  the  geographic  position  of  the  land,  and  the  in- 
fluence that  consideration  may  have  in  the  councils 
of  Connecticut.  We  voted  against  it,  under  the 
sentiment  upon  which  our  state  hath  acted  of  her 
right  to  the  northwest  line  from  the  northern 
extremity  of  her  charter  limits,  which  we  sup- 
pose should  be  regarded  even  after  the  right 
was  given  to  the  United  States  by  the  delega- 
tion." 5 

These  letters  shed  enough  light  upon  the  rea- 
sons which  influenced  Congress  in  accepting  the 
Connecticut  cession.  That  State  could  indeed  feel 
that  she  had  won  a  substantial  victory.  She  had 
secured  a  ratification  of  her  charter  claims — so  far 
as  the  acceptance  could  be  considered  a  ratification 
— and  she  had  retained  some  three  and  a  third  mil- 
lion acres  in  a  region  already  covered  by  the  ces- 
sions of  New  York  and  Virginia. 

Connecticut  proceeded  to  dispose  of  the  lands  in 
her  "  reserve."  Five  hundred  thousand  acres  were 
donated  for  the  use  of  her  citizens  who  lost  their 
property  when  the  British  burned  the  towns  of 
Danbury,  Fairfield,  Norwalk  and  New  London. 
These  were  known  as  "  The  Sufferers'  Lands  "  or 
"  The  Fire  Lands."  Although  the  grant  was  made 
in  1792,  the  Indian  title  was  not  extinguished  by 
the  Federal  government  until  1805,  the  surveys 

8  Bancroft  I.,  510. 


324  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

were  then  made  and  the  first  "  drawings "  took 
place  in  1808. 

Although  the  state  placed  on  sale  the  eastern 
part  of  the  reserve  in  1786  conditions  on  the  fron- 
tier were  too  unsettled  to  warrant  many  purchases. 
The  balance,  estimated  at  four  million,  but  actually 
less  than  three  million  acres,  were  sold  on  Septem- 
ber 9,  1795,  to  a  company  for  twelve  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars,  which  was  set  aside  as  the  basis  of  the 
Connecticut  school  fund.8 

Connecticut  had  retained  the  jurisdiction  over 
her  reserve,  and  in  1796,  when  settlement  advanced 
into  that  region,  this  began  to  cause  trouble.  Con- 
necticut failed  to  erect  a  local  government  there, 
nor  did  she  think  it  desirable  to  govern  a  tract  of 
land  at  least  three  hundred  and  fifty  miles  from  her 
borders.  Governor  St.  Clair,  of  the  Northwest 
Territory,  considered  that  his  jurisdiction  ex- 
tended over  the  region.  Some  government  was 
necessary,  and  as  Connecticut  did  not  care  to  pro- 
vide it,  now  that  she  had  disposed  of  the  soil,  she 
turned  to  the  Federal  government  and  in  October, 
1797,  tendered  the  jurisdiction  over  the  reserve  to 
the  United  States.  At  that  session  the  Senate  dis- 
cussed the  question,  and  at  the  next  session  passed 
a  bill  of  acceptance,  but  the  House  postponed 
action.  On  April  28,  1800,  an  act  was  finally 
passed  after  a  considerable  debate,  which  unfortu- 
nately is  not  recorded.  But  the  objections  must 

« The  Land  System  of  the  Western  Reserve.  New  England 
Magazine,  v.  2. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     325 

have  been  much  the  same  as  those  in  1786.  John 
Marshall,  chairman  of  the  House  Committee, 
advised  acceptance.7  In  the  Senate  an  amendment 
was  offered  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  the  title  of 
Connecticut  to  the  Western  Reserve  in  the 
Supreme  Court,  but  it  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of 
fifteen  to  ten.  The  reasons  which  led  to  the  accept- 
ance of  the  cession  in  1786  held  when  Connecticut 
offered  the  jurisdiction  of  her  reserve  in  1797. 

Under  the  Act  of  1800  Connecticut  had  to  re- 
nounce all  claim  to  lands  west  of  her  present  limits, 
except  to  lands  in  the  Western  Reserve,  and  ex- 
pressly cede  the  jurisdiction  over  the  latter  to  the 
United  States.  In  return  the  President  was  author- 
ized to  issue  to  the  Governor  of  Connecticut  a 
patent  for  the  lands  in  the  reserve.  In  this  way  the 
United  States  gained  jurisdiction  over  the  Western 
Reserve  and  the  holders  of  land  there  under  Con- 
necticut deeds  secured  a  confirmation  of  their  hold- 
ings from  the  United  States. 

The  Virginia  Military  Reserve 
Virginia  based  her  claim  to  Western  lands-  upon 
two  grounds,  her  ancient  charter  and  the  conquest 
of  a  portion  of  the  Northwest  by  George  Rogers 
Clark.  According  to  her  second  charter,  that  of 
1609,  her  territory  extended  two  hundred  miles 
north  and  south  of  Point  Comfort  and  included 
the  back  country  from  sea  to  sea,  "  west  and  north- 
west." It  was  the  determination  of  these  "west 

i  P.   L.    I.,  94. 


S26  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

and  northwest "  lines  which  caused  trouble  later.8 
If  the  west  line  was  extended  from  the  northern 
point  on  the  coast,  and  the  northwest  line  from 
the  southern,  then  Virginia  would  be  shaped  like  a 
triangle;  but  if  the  lines  were  reversed,  then  she 
would  be  a  great  trapezoid  in  shape,  with  an  ex- 
tensive coastline  on  the  Pacific,  interfering  with 
the  later  sea-to-sea  claims  of  Massachusetts  and 
Connecticut.  The  Virginians  accepted  the  latter 
view  at  the  time  when  claims  to  the  Western  lands 
were  being  pressed,  and  if  they  had  their  way  they 
would  be  entitled  to  almost  all  of  the  Northwest. 
But  there  were  those  who  held  that  all  the  claims 
to  that  region  were  nullified  by  the  Quebec  Act  of 
1774.  If  that  was  the  case,  then  Virginia  claimed 
the  country  northwest  of  the  Ohio  by  reason  of 
the  expedition  of  George  Rogers  Clark  and  his 
frontiersmen  in  1779.  But  this  claim  only  applied 
to  the  territory  south  of  Michigan. 

It  may  have  sounded  valid  enough  in  1781,  but 
at  this  day  it  seems  most  extraordinary  that  one  of 
the  United  States  should  set  up  a  claim  to  terri- 
tory acquired  by  her  troops  during  the  Revolution. 
To  be  sure,  Clark  was  commissioned  by  Governor 
Henry  and  the  expenses  of  his  expedition  were 
largely  met  by  the  State  of  Virginia,  but  the  con- 
quest of  Vincennes  and  Kaskaskia  was  a  part  of 
the  great  struggle  and  its  ultimate  success  de- 
pended upon  the  general  result.  If  Massachusetts 
and  South  Carolina  and  the  other  coast  States  had 

s  Hinsdale  (1899),  73. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION      327 

failed  in  their  endeavors,  Virginia  would  have  had 
no  opportunity  to  lay  claim  to  the  Northwest  by 
conquest.  As  an  exploit,  the  expedition  of  Clark 
deserves  the  highest  praise,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
really  believe  that  through  ,it  the  State  of  Vir- 
ginia came  into  possession  of  any  territory  to  which 
she  did  not  already  have  a  valid  title.  The  wisdom 
of  Congress  in  accepting  the  cession  of  all  claims 
without  passing  upon  their  validity  has  already 
been  pointed  out. 

When  the  Virginia  cession  was  finally  completed 
in  1784  certain  conditions  were  incorporated  in  the 
deed.  The  United  States  was  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  Clark's  expedition  and  occupation;  the  French 
settlers  who  had  professed  themselves  to  be  citizens 
of  Virgina  were  to  be  protected  in  their  rights ;  the 
land  promised  by  Virginia  to  Clark  and  his  men, 
at  least  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  acres,  was 
to  be  located  in  the  ceded  territory;  and  any  defi- 
ciency in  the  lands  granted  in  Kentucky  for  mili- 
tary bounties  should  be  made  up  in  the  region  be- 
tween the  Scioto  and  Little  Miami  rivers.  Then 
followed  the  well-known  condition  as  to  the  dis- 
posal of  the  rest  of  the  cession.9 

» Another  condition  provided  that  the  territory  ceded  should  be 
laid  out  into  states  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  nor  more  than  one 
hundred  and  fifty  miles  square.  These  areas  were  much  smaller  than 
seemed  desirable  to  Congress,  so  in  1786  Virginia  was  asked  to  as- 
sent to  the  formation  of  from  three  to  five  states  instead.  Virginia 
passed  the  desired  act  on  December  30,  1788,  in  the  form  of  a  rati- 
fication of  the  compact  in  the  Ordinance  of  1787  in  so  far  as  it 
established  boundaries  for  the  new  states. 


S28  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

All  of  these  specific  conditions  were  eventually 
complied  with.  The  tract  for  Clark's  men  was 
located  near  the  falls  of  the  Ohio,  in  the  present 
State  of  Indiana.10  The  possessions  of  the  French 
settlers  were  respected  and  their  land  claims  were 
generously  confirmed.11  But  the  questions  arising 
out  of  the  Virginia  military  reserve  caused  an  un- 
expected amount  of  trouble. 

In  the  first  place,  the  clause  was  carelessly 
drawn.  In  the  Virginia  offer  of  January  2,  1781, 
the  clause  provided  for  Virginia  troops  upon  the 
Continental  establishment  and  upon  the  State  es- 
tablishment.12 But  the  provision  for  the  troops  of 
the  State  line  was  omitted  from  the  resolutions 
which  were  presented  to  Congress,  and  this  omis- 
sion was  carried  over  into  the  formal  deed  of 
1784.13 

Then  again,  the  reservation  was  indefinite  in 
amount.  The  land  bounties  offered  by  Virginia 
to  her  Revolutionary  soldiers  were  indeed  gener- 
ous. In  1776,  1777,  and  1778,  the  State  found 

10  English,  Conquest  of  the  Country  Northwest  of  the  River  Ohio. 
II.,  825-860. 

11  See  ch.   9. 
"Hening,    X.,    564. 

13  During  the  Revolution  each  State  supplied  troops  for  the  Conti- 
nental forces,  and  also  maintained  regular  State  troops — the  State 
line — militia,  and  irregular  forces.  The  national  bounty  lands  were 
originally  offered  only  to  soldiers  of  the  Continental  line.  Virginia 
had  sixteen  regiments  on  the  Continental  establishment,  three  regi- 
ments of  State  line,  two  Western  regiments,  and  a  navy  of  twenty 
or  twenty-five  vessels.  P.  L.  VIII.,  583.  Confusion  frequently 
arises  because  the  Continental  troops  were  raised  by  States. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     329 

that  a  money  bounty,  in  addition  to  the  Congres- 
sional bounties,  was  sufficient.  But  in  1779  and 
1780  money,  land  and,  finally,  slaves  were  offered. 
In  the  latter  year,  for  example,  a  private  enlisting 
in  the  Continental  line  for  the  war  was-  to  receive 
twelve  thousand  dollars  (in  depreciated  paper), 
and,  at  the  end  of  the  war,  a  sound  negro  between 
ten  and  thirty  ye'ars  of  age  or  sixty  pounds  in 
gold  or  silver,  and  three  hundred  acres  of  land. 
Doubtless  a  few  lukewarm  patriots  were  enlisted 
under  such  circumstances.  At  first  the  bounties 
were  offered  to  men  enlisting  in  the  Continental 
forces,  in  addition  to  the  Congressional  bounty, 
but  finally  all  troops,  State  and  Continental,  army 
and  navy,  were  placed  upon  the  same  footing.  The 
land  bounties  finally  stood  as  follows:  Major- 
general,  fifteen  thousand  acres;  brigadier-general, 
ten  thousand  acres;  colonel,  six  thousand  six  hun- 
dred and  sixty-six  acres;  lieutenant-colonel,  six 
thousand  acres;  major,  five  thousand  three  hun- 
dred and  thirty-three  acres ;  captain,  four  thousand 
acres;  subaltern,  two  thousand  six  hundred  and 
sixty-six  acres;  non-commissioned  officer  (enlisting 
for  the  war) ,  four  hundred  acres,  (for  three  years) 
two  hundred  acres;  private  (for  the  war),  three 
hundred  acres,  (for  three  years)  one  hundred 
acres.  And  an  increase  of  one-sixth  for  each  year's 
service  over  six.  Baron  Steuben,  who  did  not  be- 
long to  any  State  line,  was  granted  fifteen  thou- 
sand acres.  He  also  received  two  thousand  from 
Pennsylvania  and  eleven  hundred  from  Congress. 


330  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

And  other  special  or  "  resolution "  grants  were 
made  for  distinguished  service.14 

In  December,  1778,  a  military  reserve  was  set 
apart  in  Kentucky,  between  the  Greenbrier  River, 
the  Carolina  line,  the  Tennessee  River  and  the 
Ohio,15  but  as  some  of  this  reserve  was  found  to 
lie  in  North  Carolina's  western  lands  the  bounds 
were  extended  to  the  westward  as  far  as  the  Mis- 
sissippi. In  1783  the  surveyors  were  authorized  to 
locate  warrants  in  the  Ohio  country,  between  the 
Scioto  and  Little  Miami  rivers,  after  the  good  land 
in  Kentucky  was  exhausted,  and  the  deed  of  ces- 
sion of  1784  contained  the  same  stipulation.  Only 
when  no  more  "  good  lands  "  could  be  found  south 
of  the  Ohio  were  warrants  to  be  located  in  the 
Ohio  country.  But  as  the  surveys  were  irregular 
in  shape  and  designed  to  cover  as  much  good  land 
as  possible  without  a  proportionate  amount  of  the 
bad,  and  as  the  larger  warrants  could  be  divided 
and  located  on  different  tracts,  it  was  evident  that 
there  would  not  be  enough  "good  land"  in  the 
Kentucky  reserve  to  satisfy  the  splendid  bounties 
of  Virginia.16  And  the  matter  was  further  com- 
plicated by  the  Indian  titles  in  Kentucky.17  It 

i*  The  Act  of  1780  which  increased  the  bounty  of  soldiers  serving 
for  the  war  to  three  hundred  acres  was  overlooked  and  not  acted 
upon  until  it  was  noticed  in  1822  by  Hening.  The  warrants  issued 
before  that  date  read  two  hundred  acres.  See  Hening,  X.,  331  n. 

is  Hening,  X.,   50. 

i«  The  act  of  1783  allowed  six  surveys  to  a  general,  five  to  a  field 
officer,  and  four  to  a  captain  or  subaltern.  Hening,  XI.,  309. 

"  In  order  to  prevent  trouble  with  the  Indians  the  Governor  of 
Virginia  ordered  the  suspension  of  surveys  on  Jan.  6,  1785. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     331 

was  npt  until  1818  that  the  rights  of  the  Chick- 
asaws  to  the  lands  between  the  Tennessee  and  the 
Mississippi  were  extinguished,  and  at  that  date  the 
State  of  Kentucky  had  prohibited  the  location  of 
Virginia  warrants  within  her  limits. 

The  Congress  of  the  Confederation  early  took 
measures  to  protect  the  rights  of  Virginia  to  the 
reserve  in  Ohio.  The  proposed  land  ordinance  of 
1784  contained  a  clause  to  the  effect  that  Virginia 
laws  should  govern  the  granting  of  bounty  lands 
there.  When  this  ordinance  came  up  in  amended 
form  in  1785  it  simply  confirmed  the  Virginia 
troops  in  their  rights  under  the  deed  of  cession.  A 
general  debate  arose  over  the  construction  of  the 
Virginia  deed  of  cession,  and  an  effort  was  made 
to  bring  the  reserve  under  the  general  land  system, 
so  that  the  rectangular  surveys  would  be  used 
there,  but  this  did  not  come  to  a  vote.18  It -was 
finally  decided  to  reserve  all  the  land  between  the 
two  rivers  until  the  Virginia  claims  were  settled.19 
It  would  have  been  a  great  blessing  for  the  Vir- 
ginia veterans  and  for  the  State  of  Ohio  if  the 
system  of  rectangular  prior  surveys  had  been  in- 
troduced. 

But  until  a  deficiency  was  proven  in  the  bounty 
lands  in  Kentucky  no  warrants  could  be  located 
north  of  the  Ohio.  Congress  took  occasion  to  point 
this  out  in  1788,  when  it  stated  that  all  locations 
and  surveys  would  be  considered  void  until  the 

is  Bancroft,  I.,  435.    Grayson  to  Madison,  May  1,  1785. 
i»  J.  IV.,  510. 


332  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

deficiency  south  of  the  Ohio  had  been  ascertained, 
and  it  requested  the  Governor  of  Virginia  to  find 
out  the  amount  of  land  needed,  so  that  Congress 
could  lay  out  the  proper  amount  and  dispose  of 
the  balance.20 

That  was  a  rather  difficult  problem  for  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Virginia  to  meet,  for  even  to-day  it  is  not 
possible  to  determine  how  much  land  was  required 
for  the  satisfaction  of  Virginia's  Revolutionary 
bounties.  Instead  of  waiting  for  the  Governor  to 
indulge  in  estimates  Congress  accepted  the  state- 
ment of  the  agents  of  the  soldiers  and  proceeded 
to  open  the  Virginia  reserve  to  locations.  This 
Act  of  August  10,  1790,  was  the  first  act  of  the 
new  Congress  relating  to  the  disposal  of  the  public 
lands.  It  was  not  until  1796  that  the  United 
States'  military  bounty  lands  were  set  apart,  and 
the  first  locations  were  allowed  in  1800.  And  it 
was  in  1796  that  the  first  act  for  a  general  sale  of 
lands  was  passed.  These  facts  show  how  carefully 
Congress  tried  to  live  up  to  the  terms  of  the  Vir- 
ginia cession. 

The  Act  of  1790  looked  toward  a  rapid  settle- 
ment of  the  claims.  The  Secretary  of  War  was 
to  report  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia  the  names 
of  all  men  entitled  to  bounty  lands.  Then  the 
agents  of  these  troops  were  to  select  enough  land 
north  of  the  Ohio  to  satisfy,  with  the  lands  in 
Kentucky,  all  the  claims  of  the  Virginia  troops  on 
the  Continental  establishment.  The  agents  were 

20  July  17,  1788.     J.  IV.,  836. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     333 

to  locate  the  warrants  and  file  the  entries  with  the 
Secretary  of  State.  The  President  then  caused 
the  patents  to  be  made  out,  but  they  were  to  be 
delivered  by  the  Governor  of  Virginia. 

This  act  was  not  considered  satisfactory  by  cer- 
tain of  the  Virginia  soldiers,  and  on  their  protests 
the  State  Legislature  memorialized  Congress.21 
The  act  was  therefore  amended,  in  1794,  so  that 
patents  might  issue  to  the  assigns  of  officers  and 
soldiers,  and  the  method  of  securing  that  document 
was  changed.22  After  that  date  a  person  produc- 
ing a  warrant,  a  certificate  from  the  proper  State 
officer  that  the  warrant  remained  unsatisfied,  and 
a  survey  according  to  the  laws  of  Virginia,  would 
receive  a  patent  from  the  President.  This  meant 
that  the  troops  or  their  agents  crossed  the  Ohio  to 
the  Virginia  military  district  and  located  their  war- 
rants wherever  they  found  land  which  was  appar- 
ently unappropriated.  Certain  surveyors  in  the 
Virginia  military  districts  became  great  landhold- 
ers through  their  services,  for  lancj  was  about  the 
only  means  some  of  the  warrant  holders  had  of 
paying  for  their  surveys.  It  took  but  a  short  time 
for  the  evils  of  the  Virginian  system  of  locations 
to  appear  in  her  reserve  in  Ohio.  As  early  as  1800 
Congress  provided  that  when  patents  conflicted  the 
loser  might  withdraw  that  much  of  his  warrant  and 
locate  elsewhere  in  the  reserve.  The  constant  liti- 
gation in  the  Virginia  military  reserve  in  Ohio  was 

21  P.    L.    I.,    17.  22  June  9,  1794. 


334  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

enough  to  impress  people  with  the  value  of  the  na- 
tional land  system. 

The  Virginia  warrants  were  being  located  so 
rapidly  in  Ohio  that  in  1804  Congress  felt  called 
upon  to  define  the  western  bounds  of  the  reserve. 
The  Scioto  River  proved  to  be  much  longer  than 
the  Little  Miami,  and  its  source  was  found  to  be 
actually  west  of  the  latter  stream.  In  1802  a  line 
was  run  by  William  Ludlow  from  the  source  of 
the  Little  Miami  toward  the  Scioto  as  far  as  the 
Indian  boundary  line.23  This  survey  was  accepted 
by  Congress  in  1804;  the  lands  west  of  the  line 
were  then  surveyed  and  sold  under  the  regular  sys- 
tem.24 But  Virginia  was  allowed  two  years  in 
which  to  accept  the  boundary  line,  and  as  she  failed 
to  act  the  question  rested  until  1812,  when  Con- 
gress authorized  the  appointment  of  commissioners 
to  meet  with  those  of  Virginia  for  the  determina- 
tion of  the  proper  line,  but  until  they  could  come 
to  some  agreement  the  line  of  1804  was  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  proper.25  The  commissioners  could  not 
agree,  those  from  Virginia  holding  that  the  line 
should  run  from  the  source  of  the  Scioto  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Little  Miami,  which  would  be  en- 
tirely to  the  west  of  the  latter  stream.  The  Fed- 
eral commissioners,  therefore,  instructed  Charles 
Roberts  to  run  a  new  line  between  the  sources  of 

28  P.  L.   IV.,   785.    If  continued   it  would   not  have   struck  the 
source  of  the  Scioto.  25  June  26,  1812,  ch.  109. 

a*  March  23,  1804,  ch.  S3. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION      335 

the  two  streams.20  This  line  was  fifty-three  miles 
long  and  would  include  in  the  reserve  about  fifty- 
five  thousand  acres  of  land  left  out  by  Ludlow. 
As  Virginia  did  not  agree,  the  Ludlow  line  re- 
mained in  effect  according  to  the  Act  of  1812,  but 
in  1818  Congress  established  a  new  boundary, 
namely,  the  Ludlow  line  to  the  old  Indian  bound- 
ary line,  and  the  Roberts  line  from  the  Indian 
boundary  to  the  source  of  the  Scioto.27  The  In- 
dian title  to  the  land  beyond  the  old  Greeneville 
line  was  extinguished  in  1817. 

In  the  meanwhile  Virginia  warrants  had  been 
located  on  lands  sold  by  the  United  States  be- 
tween the  two  lines,  so  in  1824  an  agreed  case  was 
decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  which  was  held  to 
establish  the  Roberts  line.28  The  court  had  to 
determine  whether  a  patent  based  on  purchase 
from  the  United  States  or  one  based  on  a  Virginia 
warrant  should  be  recognized  between  the  two 
lines.  As  the  patent  in  question  was  secured  be- 
fore the  Act  of  1812  it  very  naturally  decided  in 
favor  of  the  Virginian  claimant,  but  later  this  de- 
cision was  advanced  as  a  ruling  in  favor  of  the 
Roberts  line,  although  that  general  question  was 
not  before  the  court. 

For  a  number  of  years  this  question  was  before 
Congress,  and  finally,  in  1830,  an  appropriation  of 
$62,515.25,  with  interest  from  1825,  was  made  to 
quiet  the  claims  of  persons  who  had  located  Vir- 

26  P.  L.  II.,  735.  27  April  11,  1818,  ch.  47. 

28  Doddridge's  lessee  v.  Thompson  and  Wright.    Wheat,  469. 


336  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

ginia  warrants  between  the  two  lines  south  of  the 
Indian  boundary  line,  and  to  this  amount  $1,765.68 
was  added  the  next  year.29 

While  the  question  of  the  proper  western  bound- 
ary of  the  Virginia  reserve  was  under  discussion, 
another  question  was  presented  to  the  considera- 
tion of  Congress.  That  was  the  request  that  Con- 
gress permit  holders  of  warrants  for  services  in 
the  Virginia  State  troops  to  make  locations  in 
Ohio.  This  was  based  on  the  original  offer  of 
Virginia,  although  it  had  not  been  inserted  in  the 
deed  of  cession.  A  favorable  report  on  this  re- 
quest was  made  to  the  House  in  1812,  and  from 
that  time  until  1830  there  were  reports  and  de- 
bates on  the  subject.30  The  United  States  could 
not  be  held  to  satisfy  these  claims,  but  as  the  omis- 
sion was  apparently  an  oversight,  and  as  there  had 
been  difficulty  in  securing  land  in  Kentucky,  Con- 
gress finally  decided  to  grant  the  long-desired  per- 
mission. This  was  done  in  1830  by  an  act  which 
permitted  all  holders  of  unsatisfied  military  war- 
rants, whether  from  the  United  States  or  from 
Virginia,  for  services  either  in  the  Continental 
forces  or  in  her  State  line  or  navy,  to  exchange 
them  for  scrip  certificates  of  eighty  acres  each,  re- 
ceivable for  land  open  to  private  entry  in  Ohio, 
Indiana,  and  Illinois.31  This  act  appropriated  two 
hundred  and  sixty  thousand  acres  in  scrip  for  the 

2»  P.  L.  IV.,  66.    Negotiations  commenced  in  1824.     May  26,  1824, 
ch.  188.     May  26,  1830,  ch.  105.    Feb.  15,  1831,  ch.  19. 

so  P.    L.    II.,   446.  si  May  30,  1830,  ch.  215. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     337 

Virginia  line,  and  fifty  thousand  acres  for  the  Vir- 
ginia troops  on  Continental  establishment.  In  1832 
three  hundred  thousand  acres  were  added,  two 
hundred  thousand  in  1833,  and  six  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  acres  in  1835,  for  the  two  establish- 
ments. The  Act  of  1833  made  this  scrip  receiv- 
able for  any  land  open  to  private  entry. 

The  various  appropriations  of  scrip  for  the 
troops  of  the  State  line  were  not  sufficient  to  meet 
the  demand.  In  1832  a  great  mass  of  Revolution- 
ary documents  was  found  in  the  attic  of  the  Cap- 
itol at  Richmond,  and  on  this  evidence  were  based 
many  of  the  new  claims.32  Although  the  holders 
of  warrants  for  services  in  the  Continental  line 
could  still  locate  them  in  the  Virginia  reserve,  no 
provision  of  scrip  was  made  for  the  State  line  be- 
tween 1835  and  1852.  At  that  time  Congress 
agreed  to  exchange  scrip  for  all  Virginia  warrants 
issued  before  March  1,  1852.33  This  was  accepted 
by  Virginia  as  a  full  adjustment  of  her  bounty 
claims,  and  she  accordingly  relinquished  all  claim 
to  the  balance  of  the  Virginia  military  reserve. 
The  unappropriated  lands  in  this  district,  amount- 
ing to  76,735.44  acres,  were  ceded  to  Ohio  by  the 
Act  of  February  18,  1871,  and  Ohio  turned  the 
lands  over  to  the  Ohio  Agricultural  and  Mechan- 
ical College.34 

32  p.   L.   VIII.,  583.  33  Aug.  21,  1852,  ch.  114. 

34  Donaldson,  233.     See  House  Miss.  Doc,  No.  10.,  47  Cong.  Sess, 

2. 


338  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

It  required  thirty-four  acts  of  Congress  to  pro- 
vide for  the  bounty  claims  of  Virginia,  aside  from 
special  legislation.  Many  of  these  acts  were  un- 
necessary. The  Act  of  1804  endeavored  to  expe- 
dite the  location  of  warrants  by  stipulating  that 
all  locations  must  be  completed  within  three  years 
after  the  passage  of  the  act,  and  the  surveys  and 
warrants  returned  to  the  Department  of  War 
within  five  years.  All  lands  which  were  not  lo- 
cated upon  in  that  time  were  to  be  thrown  open 
to  public  sale.  But  if  such  action  was  highly  de- 
sirable, it  was  of  doubtful  legality.  Virginia  had 
not  agreed  to  have  her  warrants  satisfied  within  a 
fixed  time  and  the  right  of  Congress  to  insert  such 
a  time  limitation  was  questioned.  But  Congress 
did  not  insist  upon  its  own  terms.  It  repeatedly 
extended  the  time  for  securing  warrants,  making 
locations,  and  returning  the  surveys,  generally  for 
two  or  three  years.  At  various  times  it  was  not 
possible  to  locate  warrants  within  the  district  until 
an  act  of  Congress  would  permit  the  location  for  a 
limited  period.  From  1841  to  1850,  for  instance, 
the  time  extension  only  applied  to  warrants  which 
had  been  issued  before  August  10,  1840,  but  be- 
tween 1850  and  1852  any  warrant  might  be  lo- 
cated. From  the  latter  date  the  right  was  limited 
to  warrants  which  had  been  entered  within  the  dis- 
trict before  January  1,  1852,  and  persons  holding 
such  were  finally  allowed  until  May  27,  1883,  to  re- 
turn the  surveys,  certificates  and  warrants,  and  to 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     330 

receive  their  patents,  for  it  was  found  that  lands  in 
the  Virginia  reserve  had  been  occupied  for  years 
without  the  completion  of  title.  In  1882  persons 
who  had  occupied  lands  for  twenty  years  under  a 
Virginia  warrant  which  had  at  any  time  been  en- 
tered at  the  land  office  were  confirmed  in  their 
titles.  It  is  still  possible  to  offer  the  scrip  issued 
for  the  Virginia  bounty  warrants,  under  the  Act  of 
1852,  in  payment  for  public  lands,  but  the  right  to 
exchange  outstanding  warrants  for  scrip  ceased  on 
March  3,  1900,  by  an  act  of  1899.35 

It  has  been  shown  that  Congress  more  than  car- 
ried out  the  terms  of  the  Virginia  deed  of  cession. 
Virginia  received,  north  of  the  Ohio,  the  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand  acre  tract  which  she  had 
promised  to  George  Rogers  Clark  and  his  men.36 
She  received  the  lands  in  the  reserve,  some  3,770,- 
000  acres — and  the  reserve  tract  proved  to  be 
larger  than  was  anticipated  in  1784.  Under  the 
early  scrip  acts  some  1,460,000  acres  were  appro- 
priated, and  under  the  Act  of  1852  scrip  amount- 
ing to  1,068,753  acres  has  been  issued  to  the  pres- 
ent time.  A  minimum  estimate  would  place  the 
amount  of  land  granted  by  the  United  States  on 
account  of  the  Virginia  bounties  at  6,300,000  acres, 
and  only  about  half  of  this  was  located  within  the 
stipulated  reserve  in  Ohio.  Whether  her  claim  to 
the  Northwest  was  better  than  that  of  the  other 

35  March  3,  1899,  ch.  424. 

»«  In  1858,  6666$  acres  were  granted  to  the  heirs  of  Col.  Archibald 
Loughry,  who  was  killed  by  the  Indians  on  his  way  to  join  Clark. 


340  THE    NATIONAL   LAND   SYSTEM 

States  or  no,  Virginia  received  more  direct  ben- 
efit from  the  cession  than  any  other  State.37 

The  North  Carolina  Cession 
In  terms  of  dollars  and  cents  the  North  Caro- 
lina cession,  when  finally  completed,  was  the  least 
advantageous  of  all,  for  the  Federal  government 
derived  scarcely  a  penny  of  land  revenue  from  the 
ceded  territory.  But  in  many  ways  the  cession 
was  the  most  interesting  of  all,  from  an  historical 
point  of  view. 

The  Carolinas  claimed  the  land  west  of  their 
present  limits  by  virtue  of  the  charters  of  1663  and 

37  An  act  of  grace  on  the  part  of  Congress  which  did  not  come 
under  the  terms  of  the  Virginia  cession,  was  the  relief  extended  to 
the  heirs  of  Col.  Charles  Porterfield.  He  had  served  with  distinc- 
tion during  the  Revolution  and  had  been  slain  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  war.  His  son,  Robert,  received  a  warrant  for  six  thousand 
acres  in  1782,  and  one  for  2,666  as  assignee  for  Thomas  Quarles, 
another  veteran.  These  were  located  in  1784  in  Kentucky,  in  five 
entries.  The  land  was  then  in  possession  of  the  Chickasaw  Indiana 
and  was  not  available  until  1818.  Kentucky  issued  patents  to  Robert 
Porterfield  in  1824,  but  the  lands  were  also  claimed  under  Virginia 
treasury  warrants  located  by  George  Rogers  Clark  in  1780  and  1781. 
Porterfield  sued  Meriwether  Clark  in  1836-1841,  but  lost  the  action 
in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  and  the  Supreme  Court.  Some 
6133  acres  were  involved,  and  in  1860  Congress  authorized  the  issue 
of  scrip  to  the  heirs  of  Robert  Porterfield  for  that  amount.  This 
was  done  on  the  ground  that  Virginia  would  have  made  good  the 
loss  resulting  from  these  conflicting  locations  if  Virginia  had  any 
land  available  at  the  time,  but  Virginia  had  ceded  her  western  lands 
to  the  United  States,  therefore  the  United  States  should  act  as 
Virginia  would  have  done.  It  is  well  that  this  action  was  not 
taken  fifty  years  earlier  or  the  United  States  would  have  been  called 
upon  to  satisfy  many  warrants  whose  locations  were  nullified  by 
conflicting  claims  in  Kentucky.  One  hundred  and  fifty-three  war- 
rants for  forty  acres  each  were  issued  to  the  heirs  of  Robert  Porter- 
field  and  twenty-one  of  them  were  unlocated  in  1900. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     341 

1665.  No  other  State  claimed  these  lands,  in  con- 
trast to  the  tangle  of  claims  in  the  Northwest,  al- 
though the  terms  of  the  Proclamation  of  1763 
might  be  cited  in  opposition.  Before  the  Revolu- 
tion, and  during  that  struggle,  settlement  extended 
beyond  the  mountains,  so  that  at  the  time  the  land 
cessions  were  under  discussion  North  Carolina 
could  support  her  claim  by  actual  occupation.  In 
1777  she  had  opened  a  land  office  which  dealt  prin- 
cipally in  lands  in  Tennessee,  and  in  1780  she  set 
aside  there  a  tract  for  the  satisfaction  of  her  mili- 
tary bounties.  With  the  close  of  the  war  the  set- 
tlements beyond  the  mountains  began  to  grow 
rapidly. 

"  On  March  1,  1784,  the  Virginia  cession  was  com- 
pleted, and  on  the  2d  of  June  the  North  Carolina 
Legislature  passed  an  act  of  cession  of  her  west- 
ern lands.38  This  act  contained  some  general  con- 
ditions and  gave  Congress  twelve  months  in  which 
to  accept  the  offer.39  At  the  same  time  the  land 
office  was  closed  pending  the  action  of  Congress. 
It  was  the  news  of  this  cession  that  caused  the  set- 
tlers of  the  western  counties  to  set  up  the  inde- 
pendent state  of  Franklin,  which  sought  admission 
into  the  Union  between  1784  and  1787.40 

ss  J.  IV.,  523.    N.  C.  Recs.  24:  561. 

39  Most  accounts,  following  Ramsey,  283,  state  two  years,  but  com- 
pare the  Act  and  the  statement  in  J.  IV.,  523. 

*o  For  this  section  see  Roosevelt,  Winning  of  the  West,  vols.  1-3; 
G.  H.  Alden,  "The  State  of  Franklin'*  in  A.  H.  Rev.  8:  271-289; 
Turner,  "  Western  State  Making  in  the  Revolutionary  Era,"  A.  H. 
Rev.  1 :70-87 ;  G.  H.  Alden,  "  New  Governments  West  of  the  Alle- 
ghanies  before  1780."  Bulletin  of  Univ.  of  Wise.,  vol.  2,  No.  1, 
1897. 


342  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

This  independent  action  of  her  western  settlers 
apparently  caused  the  Legislature  at  the  next  ses- 
sion, in  November  of  the  same  year,  to  repeal  the 
act  of  cession,  although  that  was  not  the  reason 
assigned  in  the  repealing  measure.  It  really  is 
worth  quoting  in  full,  because  of  the  light  it  sheds 
upon  the  inter- State  relations  of  the  times. 
14  Whereas,  the  cession  so  intended  was  made  in 
full  confidence  that  the  whole  expence  of  the  In- 
dian expeditions  and  militia  aids  to  the  State  of 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  should  pass  to  ac- 
count in  our  quota  of  the  continental  expences  in- 
curred by  the  late  war:  and  also  that  the  other 
states  holding  Western  territory  would  make  sim- 
ilar cessions,  and  that  all  the  states  would  unani- 
mously grant  imposts  of  five  per  cent,  as  a  com- 
mon fund  for  the  discharge  of  the  federal  debt: 
and,  whereas,  the  States  of  Massachusetts  and 
Connecticut  after  accepting  the  cession  of  New 
York  and  Virginia  have  since  put  in  claims  for 
the  whole  or  a  large  part  of  that  territory,  and  all 
the  above  measures  for  constituting  a  substantial 
common  fund,  have  been  either  frustrated  or  de- 
layed," therefore  the  act  of  cession  is  repealed.41 
If  the  other  States  had  acted  in  the  same  "  liberal " 
manner  there  would  have  been  anarchy  in  the 
Northwest,  for  the  New  York  and  Virginia  cessions 
had  been  completed  and  those  of  Connecticut  and 
Massachusetts  were  pending.  Fortunately,  the 
conduct  of  North  Carolina  was  not  taken  as  a 
desirable  example.  Congress,  however,  took  cog- 

«i  N.   C.    Recs.    24:679. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     343 

nizance  of  the  two  acts  of  North  Carolina.  A  com- 
mittee appointed  to  examine  them  reported  that 
the  State  had  no  right  to  repeal  the  first  offer 
and  that,  therefore,  Congress  could  accept  the  ces- 
sion within  the  twelve  months  specified.42  But  this 
report  could  not  be  adopted,  although  all  the  dele- 
gates from  the  States  north  of  Maryland  voted  for 
it.  A  resolution  did  pass,  however,  requesting 
North  Carolina  to  repeal  her  second  act  and  to 
direct  her  delegates  in  Congress  to  execute  a  deed 
of  cession. 

North  Carolina  failed  to  accept  the  recommen- 
dation, and  thus  the  matter  rested  until  after  the 
new  government  under  the  Constitution  had  been 
established.  In  that  period  North  Carolina  had 
been  granting  lands  in  Tennessee,  and  35,691  per- 
sons were  resident  there  in  1790.  The  failure  of 
North  Carolina  and  Georgia  to  cede  their  lands 
must  have  occasioned  no  little  ill  feeling  on  the 
part  of  the  five  States  which  had  made  cessions 
under  the  Confederation.  But  toward  the  close 
of  1789  North  Carolina  acted,43  and  on  April  2 
of  the  next  year  Congress  passed  an  act  of  accep- 
tance. At  the  same  session  the  ceded  region,  with 
the  South  Carolina  strip,  was  organized  as  the 
Territory  South  of  the  River  Ohio. 

The  North  Carolina  cession  was  based  upon  cer- 
tain conditions,  principally  to  the  effect  that  the 
State  military  bounties  should  be  satisfied  and  all 

«2  J.  IV.,  523-24.  «  Dec.  22,  1789.     N.  C.  Recs.,  25:4-6. 


344  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

rights  and  entries  to  land  under  North  Carolina 
laws  should  be  preserved.44  As  the  Indian  title 
had  been  extinguished  over  but  a  small  portion  of 
the  state  there  was  reason  to  believe  that  North 
Carolina  had  ceded  to  the  Union  the  preemption  of 
a  considerable  quantity  of  very  good  land.  The 
question,  therefore,  was  to  determine  how  much 
land  had  been  sold  or  given  away  by  North  Car- 
olina prior  to  the  cession.  , 

A  study  of  the  North  Carolina  bounty  laws 
showed  that  she  had  been  most  generous  in  her 
treatment  of  her  troops  on  the  continental  establish- 
ment. Beginning  in  1780  with  a  bounty  of  $500  a 
year,  200  acres  of  land  and  a  prime  slave  for  those 
who  would  serve  for  three  years  or  the  war,  she  had 
been  forced  to  increase  the  money  and  land  boun- 
ties until  in  1782  she  made  a  substantial  recogni- 
tion of  the  services  of  the  troops  who  might  con- 
tinue to  the  close  of  the  war.45  These  bounties  rose 
from  640  acres  for  a  private  to  12,000  acres  for  a 
brigadier;  a  captain,  for  example,  receiving  3850 
acres.  Major-General  Nathanael  Greene  was  given 
25,000  acres  in  consideration  of  his  distinguished 
services  in  defense  of  the  state.  Such  grants  would 
appropriate  a  great  amount  of  land,  and  the  sur- 
veys under  these  warrants  were  bound  to  cause 
trouble.  General  Greene's  tract  was  surveyed  in 
March,  1783,  and  by  the  act  of  the  next  year  it  was 

44  North  Carolina  reserved  the   right  to  complete  all   grants   and 
imperfect   titles.     Conflicting   entries    could    be    relocated. 

45  N.  C.  Recs.,  24s*19-422. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     345 

confirmed  to  him.46  The  boundaries  are  typical: 
"  Beginning  on  the  south  bank  of  Duck  River,  on 
a  sycamore,  cherry  tree  and  ash,  at  the  mouth  of 
a  small  branch,  running  thence  along  a  line  of 
marked  trees  south  seven  miles  and  forty-eight 
poles  to  two  Spanish  oaks,  a  hicory  (sic)  and  sugar 
sapling,  thence  east  three  miles  and  ninety  poles 
to  a  Spanish  oak  and  hackberry  tree,  north  three 
miles  and  three  hundred  poles  to  a  sugar  tree 
sapling  and  two  white  oak  saplings,  under  a  clift 
of  Duck  River  whence  it  comes  from  the  northeast, 
thence  down  Duck  River,  according  to  its  several 
meanders  to  the  beginning." 

Soon  after  the  cession  was  completed  Congress 
asked  the  President  to  prepare  an  estimate  of  the. 
unclaimed  lands  in  the  North  Carolina  cession  and 
in  the  Northwest  Territory.47  Jefferson,  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  prepared  the  report  which  showed 
that  all  the  habitable  lands  free  of  the  Indian  title 
had  been  appropriated,  while  on  the  lands  acquired 
since  the  cession,  at  the  treaty  of  Holston,  in  1791, 
some  three  hundred  families  had  already  located 
without  permission.  And  the  matter  was  further 
complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  treaties  of  Hope- 
well,  1785,  and  Holston,  1791,  had  confirmed  to 
the  Cherokees  certain  lands  on  which  North  Car- 
olina warrants  had  been  located,  the  holders  of 
which  desired  relief.48  It  was  a  matter  of  some 
importance  that  these  claims  in  Tennessee  be 

46  N.  C.  Recs.,  24:570. 

<T  p.    L.    I.,    22.  *8  P.  L.  I.,  30,  33,  78,  102,  108,  123,  etc. 


346        THE  NATIONAL  LAND  SYSTEM 

settled  in  some  way  lest  the  settlers  or  squatters 
come  to  blows  with  the  Indians.  With  the  admis- 
sion of  Tennessee  in  1796  a  new  factor  was  added 
for  there  were  those  who  held  that  the  new  state 
acquired  the  right  of  soil  as  well  as  the  right  of 
jurisdiction.49 

In  the  meanwhile  North  Carolina  continued  to 
perfect  outstanding  grants  by  extending  the  time 
in  which  they  could  be  surveyed,  registered,  or  paid 
for,  and  in  the  case  of  military  warrants  the  time 
for  the  survey  was  also  extended.  Laws  were  also 
passed  to  meet  the  frauds  which  were  being  com- 
mitted in  the  "issuing,  procuring,  receiving,  or 
transferring  land  warrants." 50  In  1803,  Tennessee 
appointed  five  commissioners  who,  with  those  to 
be  appointed  by  the  United  States,  would  have 
full  power  to  determine  all  interfering  claims  of 
the  United  States  and  Tennessee  to  vacant  lands 
within  the  latter  state.51  And  in  1805  Congress 
was  asked  to  assent  to  an  Act  of  North  Carolina 
which  would  permit  Tennessee  to  issue  grants  and 
perfect  titles  under  the  land  laws  of  the  former 
state.  The  situation  in  Tennessee  was  becoming 
very  interesting.  The  first  of  the  "  public  land 
states  "  she  found  her  mother  state  engaged  in  dis- 
posing of  her  lands — under  the  form  of  earlier 
grants  to  be  sure — while  the  Federal  Government 
would  have  possession  of  any  land  which  might 

49  p.  L.  i.,  109. 

oo  For  summary  of  N.  C.  laws  see  P.  L.  I.,  211-13. 
"P.   L.   L,   162. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     347 

escape  the  North  Carolina  grantees.  To  the  north 
Kentucky  had  for  some  time  been  disposing  of  her 
own  lands. 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  the 
unique  act  of  1806  was  passed  by  Congress.52  This 
offered  to  cede  to  Tennessee  the  title  of  the  United 
States  to  all  lands  in  the  eastern  two-thirds  of  the 
State  if  the  State  would  agree  to  relinquish  its  title 
to  the  other  lands  and  to  exempt  the  lands  of  the 
United  States  there  from  all  taxation  before  and 
for  five  years  after  sale.  This  clause  gives  the 
impression  that  the  State  might  had  some  "  right, 
title,  and  claim  "  to  the  lands  in  question.  The 
same  clause  gives  the  assent  of  Congress  to  the 
North  Carolina  act  of  1803. 

But  this  cession  of  the  United  States  was  based 
upon  certain  conditions.  In  the  first  place  all  un- 
satisfied entries,  rights,  and  warrants  of  North 
Carolina  which  were  not  actually  located  in  the 
tract  reserved  for  the  United  States  before  Feb- 
ruary 25,  1790,  must  be  satisfied  in  the  tract  ceded 
to  Tennessee.  That  state  also  was  to  appropriate 
100,00  acres  of  land  for  two  colleges,  one  in  East 
and  one  in  West  Tennessee,  and  100,000  acres  for 
the  use  of  academies,  one  for  each  county  of  the 
State.  These  lands  were  to  be  set  apart  in  the 
region  reserved  for  the  Cherokee  Indians  by  North 

62  April  18,  ch.  31.  The  line  began  where  the  eastern  branch  of 
Elk  River  intersected  the  southern  boundary  of  Tennessee,  then  due 
north  to  the  northern  branch  of  Duck  River,  thence  down  Duck 
River  to  the  North  Carolina  military  reserve,  thence  west  to  the 
Tennessee  and  clown  that  river  to  the  Kentucky  line. 


348 


THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 


TENNESSEE    AND    MISSISSIPPI 
TERRITORY 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION      349 

Carolina  arid  therefore  it  was  not  believed  the  land 
could  be  claimed  by  individuals.  And  in  addition 
the  State  was  to  locate  six  hundred  and  forty  acres 
for  every  six  miles  square  of  territory  for  the  use 
of  schools. 

In  this  way  Congress  tried  to  provide  for 
Tennessee  the  grant  of  one  section  in  each  town- 
ship for  education,  but  as  the  rectangular  surveys 
were  never  extended  over  Tennessee  it  was  an 
easy  matter  to  neglect  this  requirement.  Finally 
Congress  provided  that  if  there  were  not  enough 
good  land  in  the  Tennessee  portion  for  perfecting 
all  legal  claims  then  they  might  be  satisfied  in 
the  tract  reserved  for  the  United  States. 

This  act  surely  deserves  to  be  called  unique. 
In  it  the  United  States  transferred  to  Tennessee 
most  of  the  obligations  it  had  assumed  under  the 
North  Carolina  cession,  but  it  did  so  with  the 
assent  of  the  latter  State.  In  some  respects  the  act 
was  like  the  Ohio  Enabling  Act,  for  lands  were 
granted  for  schools,  seminaries,  and  colleges,  and 
the  State  agreed  not  to  tax  Federal  lands  until  five 
years  after  sale.  But  the  form  of  the  act,  provid- 
ing for  an  instrument  to  be  signed  by  the  com- 
missioners of  the  State  of  Tennessee  gave  color  to 
the  idea  that  it  was  a  more  formal  bargain  and  that 
the  State  really  had  some  right  to  all  the  lands 
within  its  boundaries.53  It  should  be  noted  that 
Tennessee  was  to  receive  more  lands  for  colleges 
than  Ohio,  while  the  latter  State  had  not  been  given 

53  Agreement  signed  Jan.  23,  1807.     P.  L.  I.,  584. 


S50  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

seminary  lands.  As  a  matter  of  fact  these  grants 
were  mostly  on  paper.54 

It  would  be  too  much  to  expect  that  the  Act  of 
1806  could  settle  definitely  the  tangled  land  claims 
in  Tennessee.  Here  was  an  excellent  example  of 
the  confusion  resulting  from  the  old  southern 
system.  Warrants,  entries,  location,  and  surveys 
were  frequently  in  conflict.  And  the  system  lent 
itself  to  fraud.  What  was  needed  was  the  extension 
of  the  national  land  system  over  as  much  of  Ten- 
nessee as  possible,  and  this  seemed  feasible  because 
the  Indian  title  had  not  been  extinguished  in  the 
Congressional  reserve.55 

But  with  the  extinguishment  of  the  Indian  title 
Congress  could  not  act,  because  it  had  promised  to 
perfect  all  legal  claims  to  land  within  its  reserve  in 
case  sufficient  land  should  be  wanting  in  Tennes- 

5*  For  a  discussion  of  these  grants  for  education  see  L.  S.  Mer- 
riam,  Higher  Education  in  Tennessee,  Bureau  of  Education,  Cir- 
cular of  Information,  No.  5,  1893.  The  college  grants  were  divided 
between  the  Cumberland  College  (later  the  University  of  Nash- 
ville) and  the  East  Tennessee  College  (later  the  University  of  Ten- 
nessee). When  an  attempt  was  made  to  locate  the  lands  it  was 
found  that  squatters  claimed  preemption  on  practically  the  entire 
available  area.  They  were  allowed  to  purchase  their  lands  at  $1 
an  acre  in  ten  equal  annual  payments,  and  later  the  time  of  payment 
was  frequently  extended,  so  that  little  was  secured  for  the  colleges. 
In  1838,  the  Universities  accepted  from  the  state  a  half-township 
of  land,  11,520  acres,  each,  in  lieu  of  their  claims  under  the  Con- 
gressional grant.  Apparently  the  only  seminary  to  receive  aid 
under  the  seminary  grant  was  the  Hampden  Sidney  Academy  at 
Knoxville.  No  lands  were  set  apart  for  schools. 

55  Title  to  the  country  between  the  Tennessee  and  the  Duck  riv- 
ers acquired  from  the  Cherokees  in  1806,  and  from  the  Chickasaws 
in  1816,  west  of  the  Tennessee  River  from  the  Chickasaws  in  1818. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     351 

see's  reserve.  It,  therefore,  had  to  wait  until  all 
existing  claims  had  been  satisfied,  or  it  was  evident 
that  they  could  not  be  satisfied  by  Tennessee.  But 
now  the  matter  was  complicated  by  the  position 
taken  by  North  Carolina.  She  objected  to  the 
provision  in  the  Act  of  1806  which  would  allow 
incomplete  entries  and  interfering  locations  to  be 
perfected  only  on  the  Tennessee  reserve,  and  under 
her  act  of  1811  she  commenced  the  next  year  to 
make  surveys  and  issue  grants  in  the  Congressional 
reserve.56  Tennessee  protested  against  this  action 
of  North  Carolina  and  forbade  further  surveys  by 
an  act  of  1812  and  asked  that  she  be  given  the 
power  to  perfect  the  grants  in  the  region  in  ques- 
tion.57 

To  meet  this  three-cornered  controversy  Con- 
gress, in  1818,  gave  Tennessee  permission  to  com- 
plete grants  west  of  the  dividing  line,  but  tried  to 
reserve  lands  within  the  Indian  boundary  line.58 
Tennessee  was  also  permitted  to  perfect  the  grants 
obtained  from  North  Carolina  in  1812,  provided 
they  were  valid.  About  the  same  time  a  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  held  against  the  right  of 
North  Carolina  to  make  further  grants  in  Ten- 


nessee.59 


Under  the  Act  of  1806  Tennessee  was  bound  to 
sell  the  land  in  her  reserve  at  a  price  equal  to  the 
prevailing  price  of  public  lands,  although  a  pre- 
emption at  $1.00  an  acre  was  allowed  in  certain 

o«P.  L.   III.,   274.  «  P.  L.  III.,  287. 

58  April  4,  1818,  ch.  35.     The  Chickasaw  treaty  was  Oct.  19. 

es  Burton's  Lessee  v.  Williams,  et  al.    3  Wheaton,  528. 


352  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

parts.  With  the  reduction  of  the  minimum  in  1820 
Tennessee  could  reduce  her  price.  In  1823  this 
limit  was  removed  and  Tennessee  could  charge 
whatever  she  desired.  Much  of  her  land  was  then 
offered  at  as  little  as  12  J  cents  an  acre.80 

For  twenty-five  years  more  the  question  of  the 
Tennessee  lands  was  before  Congress.  The  North 
Carolina  grants  were  extensive  and  the  good  land 
was  rapidly  being  taken  up.  In  1829  it  was  re- 
ported that  although  2,353,824  acres  remained  un- 
appropriated in  the  Congressional  reserve  it  was 
principally  "refuse  land,"  which  had  been  picked 
over  for  years  and  was  probably  worth  from  12J 
to  one  cent  an  acre.61  The  expense  of  bringing 
these  vacant  lands  into  the  national  system  would 
be  great  because  the  region  was  so  cut  up  by  the 
surveys  under  the  North  Carolina  warrants.  Ten- 
nessee had  laid  off  the  tract  in  townships  five  miles 
square,  like  those  in  the  Ohio  Military  reserve.62 

eo  Feb.  28,   1823,   ch.    19.  ei  P.  L.  VI.,  82. 

«» "  The  claimant  or  holders  of  warrants  were  not  required  to 
take  up  the  land  by  sections,  quarter  sections,  or  in  any  other 
regular  form  of  surveying,  adjoining  section  or  range  lines,  and  so 
as  to  include  a  portion  of  the  poor  with  the  rich  land;  but  each 
claimant  explored  the  country  for  himself,  or  by  his  agent,  and 
made  his  own  location,  selecting,  of  course,  the  best  land  within 
his  knowledge,  and  so  making  his  survey  to  exclude,  as  far  as 
practicable,  the  sterile  and  to  include  the  fertile  lands.  The  North 
Carolina  claimants  were  promised  land  fit  for  cultivation,  and  to 
enable  them  to  obtain  it,  a  division  of  warrants  was  authorized  by 
law;  the  consequence  of  which  has  been  that  locations  and  entries 
upon  warrants  of  all  sizes,  from  one  to  5,000  acres,  have  been  made 
upon  the  land  in  question,  and  in  surveys  of  every  imaginable 
shape — surveys  even  of  small  tracts  of  land  having,  in  many  in- 
stances, a  dozen  or  more  offsets  and  corners."  P.  L.  VI.,  356.  See 
map  of  a  typical  township. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION      353 

After  several  reports  had  been  submitted  on  the 
vacant  lands  in  Tennessee,  Congress  apparently 
decided  that  it  was  not  worth  while  to  bring  them 
under  the  national  system,  but  it  delayed  making 
any  other  provision  for  them.  Finally,  in  1841,  it 
made  the  State  of  Tennessee  its  agent  for  the  dis- 
posal of  the  unappropriated  land.63  In  the  first 
place,  Tennessee  was  to  perfect  the  outstanding 
North  Carolina  warrants,  but  in  order  to  expedite 
the  process  these  must  be  located  within  one  year, 
or  else  during  the  next  two  years  they  could  be 
redeemed  at  12  J  cents  an  acre.  Persons  entitled 
to  a  preemption  under  the  laws  of  Tennessee  were 
confirmed  in  that  privilege  for  not  more  than  200 
acres  at  12  J  cents  an  acre.  Finally,  the  unappro- 
priated lands  were  to  be  offered  for  sale  for  three 
years  at  12 J  cents  an  acre,  and  for  the  next  three 
years  at  any  price.  But  Tennessee  was  to  pay 
over  to  the  United  States  all  sums  above  the 
amount  required  to  satisfy  the  North  Carolina 
claims.64 

This  act  provided  for  the  sale  of  lands  in  the 
Congressional  Reserve,  but  it  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected that  the  other  details  of  the  act  would  be 
carried  out.  It  was  not  customary  for  terms  such 
as  these  to  be  insisted  upon  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment. So  in  1846  the  United  States  turned 
over  to  Tennessee  all  the  unappropriated  lands  in 
its  former  reserve  as  well  as  the  amount  due  for 

as  Feb.    18,    1841,   ch.    7. 

«*  I  can  find  no  record  of  any  payments  being  made. 


354  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

lands  sold  there,65  in  full  satisfaction  of  the  ex- 
penses incurred  by  the  state  in  managing  the  said 
public  lands  as  the  agent  of  the  United  States.  Ten- 
nessee, in  turn,  was  to  appropriate  $40,000  of  the 
proceeds  for  a  college  at  Jackson,  or  as  much  as 
the  lands  might  bring  less  than  that  sum,  and  out- 
standing North  Carolina  claims  were  to  be  pro- 
vided for.66 

In  this  way,  fifty-six  years  after  the  deed  of 
cession,  the  United  States  finally  turned  its  obliga- 
tions over  to  the  State  of  Tennessee,  for  by  that 
time  Tennessee  surely  had  gained  considerable  ex- 
perience in  dealing  with  North  Carolina  warrants. 

The  North  Carolina  cession,  therefore,  had 
vested  in  the  United  States  a  jurisdiction  which  it, 
in  turn,  had  in  1796  transferred  to  the  State  of 
Tennessee.  The  ceded  lands  never  came  under  the 
national  land  system  and  only  640  acres  were  ever 
sold  directly  by  the  United  States.67  And  the  grants 
for  education,  which  the  Federal  government  tried 
to  make,  failed  because  the  State  would  not  protect 
them  from  private  exploitation.  Tennessee,  how- 
ever, did  not  fare  any  too  well  in  this  matter.  To 
be  sure  the  Federal  Government  finally  turned 
over  to  her  all  the  vacant  lands  within  her  limits, 
a  treatment  accorded  no  other  public  land  State, 
but  the  best  of  these  lands  were  claimed  under  the 
warrants  of  North  Carolina.  And  for  years  she 

««  Aug.  7,  1846,  ch.  92. 

o«  In  the  debate  in  the  House  it  was  held  that  these  claims  were 
barred  under  the  Act  of  1841.    Globe,  15:  1199. 

«7  Townsite  of  Pulaski,  1811.    Feb.  25,  1811,  ch.  24. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     355 

had  to  maintain  land  offices  principally  for  the 
satisfaction  of  such  grants.  In  its  origin  and  its 
later  history  the  North  Carolina  session  is  one  of 
the  most  interesting  of  the  seven  which  formed  the 
National  Domain. 


The    Yazoo  Land   Claims 

Of  all  the  state  cessions  that  of  Georgia 
occasioned  the  most  controversy,  and  that  because 
of  the  long  delay  in  turning  the  region  over  to  the 
Federal  Government.  In  the  meantime  the  State 
had  made  and  rescinded  vast  grants  which  laid  the 
foundation  of  later  controversy. 

The  bounds  of  Georgia  were  not  well  established 
at  the  close  of  the  Revolution.  The  youngest  of 
the  colonies,  she  had  been  carved  out  of  the  South 
Carolina  territories  and  the  older  State  insisted  on 
a  strict  interpretation  of  Georgia's  charter  claims. 
In  fact  the  dispute  was  finally  laid  before  the  old 
Congress  and  a  Federal  Court  was  authorized,  but 
the  States  decided  to  settle  the  matter  between 
themselves  and  South  Carolina  finally  yielded  her 
claims  to  the  region  back  of  the  southern  part  of 
the  existing  Georgia  settlements.68  On  the  day 
that  this  convention  was  laid  before  Congress  the 
delegates  of  South  Carolina  executed  the  deed  of 
cession  to  the  United  States  of  her  western  lands, 
a  strip  twelve  miles  wide  stretching  along  the 

«8  West  of  the  headwaters  of  the  St.  Mary's  and  Altamaha.     Con- 
vention of  April  28,  1787. 


356  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

southern  boundary  of  the  present  State  of  Ten- 
nessee to  the  Mississippi  River.60 

On  several  occasions  the  Congress  of  the  Con- 
federation urged  Georgia  and  the  other  backward 
States  to  cede  their  western  lands.  In  1785  Georgia 
organized  Bourbon  County  on  the  Mississippi, 
south  of  the  Yazoo.70  Finally  on  February  1, 
1788,  an  act  authorizing  the  cession  passed  the 
State  legislature.  But  this  act  ceded  only  the  lower 
half  of  the  western  lands  and  insisted  upon  a  guar- 
antee by  Congress  of  the  remainder.  The  offer 
was  therefore  refused  and  the  Confederation 
passed  out  of  existence  with  the  Georgia  and  North 
Carolina  cessions  unfinished.71 

Georgia  determined  to  take  advantage  of  the 
increasing  interest  in  land  speculation  and  by  act 
of  December  21,  1789,  granted  25,400,000  acres  of 
land  to  the  South  Carolina  Yazoo  Company,  the 
Virginia  Yazoo  Company  and  the  Tennessee  Com- 
pany, the  total  payments  to  be  $207,580.72  The 
purchasers  were  to  quiet  the  Indian  claims  and 
make  final  payments  within  two  years,  when 
patents  in  fee  simple  would  pass.  In  each  case  par- 
tial payments  were  made  in  depreciated  paper  but 
final  payments  of  the  same  kind  were  refused  by 

«»Aug.  9,  1787.     J.  IV.,  771. 

TOHaskins,  64. 

"July   13,   1788.    J.   IV.,   834, 

72  S.  C.,  10,000,000  acres,  $66,964;  Va.,  11400,000  acres,  $93,741; 
Tenn.,  4,000,000  acres,  $46,875.  It  is  quite  impossible  to  discuss 
the  Yazoo  Land  Companies  without  following  very  closely  the  ex- 
cellent treatment  of  this  subject  in  Prof.  Charles  H.  Haskins'  "  The 
Yazoo  Land  Companies,"  Papers  of  the  A.  H.  A.  vol.  5:  61-103. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     357 

the  State  authorities,  after  the  Act  of  June,  1790, 
which  directed  the  receipt  of  nothing  but  specie  in 
the  discharge  of  debts  due  the  State.  The  South 
Carolina  Company  instituted  a  suit  in  equity 
against  Georgia  only  to  have  it  dropped  after  the 
ratification  of  the  eleventh  amendment  of  the  Con- 
stitution. 

Such  was  the  first  Yazoo  sale.  The  preemption 
of  the  companies  had  lapsed  and  the  State  could 
again  dispose  of  its  western  lands.  In  1795  the 
second  and  more  notorious  sale  was  effected.73  This 
covered  the  greater  part  of  the  present  states  of 
Alabama  and  Mississippi,  some  35,000,000  acres, 
and  the  price  was  $500,000.  Four  companies  were 
to  divide  this  magnificent  region,  the  Georgia, 
Georgia-Mississippi,  Tennessee,  and  Upper  Mis- 
sissippi, companies,  and  their  respective  shares  of 
the  purchase  money  were  $250,000,  $155,000, 
$60,000,  and  $35,000.  At  the  time  this  price  was 
estimated  at  two  and  one-third  cents  the  acre,  but 
as  a  matter  of  fact  it  would  have  been  nearer  one 
and  one-half  cents.  A  total  reserve  of  2,000,000 
acres  was  to  be  set  apart  in  the  tracts  for  the  bene- 
fit of  citizens  of  Georgia  who  might  care  to  sub- 
scribe for  the  lands  on  the  same  terms  as  the  com- 
panies. 

The  act  had  no  sooner  been  passed  than  a  gen- 
eral protest  arose.  Whether  it  had  been  passed 
by  corrupt  means  or  not  the  general  opinion  was 
that  the  action  was  ill  advised,  and  when  it  was 

73  p.  L.  I.,  132-6. 


358  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

known  that  with  one  exception  every  member  who 
voted  for  the  grant  was  interested  in  some  one  of 
the  companies  the  popular  resentment  was  further 
aroused.74  At  the  first  meeting  of  the  new  Legis- 
lature the  Act  of  1795  was  rescinded  as  having 
been  a  violation  of  the  Constitution,75  and  in  1798 
the  Constitutional  Convention  incorporated  the 
provisions  of  the  rescinding  act  in  the  new  Consti- 
tution. 

It  was  very  natural  that  the  sale  of  1795  should 
have  aroused  considerable  interest  in  the  other 
States.  Even  if  Georgia  were  acting  well  within 
her  legal  rights  in  the  matter  it  was  certainly  un- 
reasonable that  she  should  be  disposing  of  her  west- 
ern lands  while  six  other  States  had  ceded  their 
claims  to  the  Federal  Government.  And  the  opin- 
ion was  advanced  that  Georgia  really  had  no  title 
to  the  lands  in  question.  This  was  based  on  the 
Royal  Proclamation  of  1763  and  the  belief  that  the 
Province  of  West  Florida  had  been  extended  over 
that  region.  If  this  opinion  were  correct  then  this 
part  of  the  West  at  least  must  have  been  won  by  the 
whole  nation  as  a  result  of  the  Revolution.  Against 
this  contention  was  cited  the  commission  of  Gover- 
nor Wright,  of  Georgia,  in  1764,  which  distinctly 
added  the  back  lands  to  his  government,  while  the 
actual  extension  of  West  Florida  was  denied.76 
Congress  determined  to  investigate  the  various 
claims  and  in  March,  1795,  instructed  Charles  Lee, 

74  Raskins,  84.  75  Feb.  13,  1796. 

™  R  L.  I..  66. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     359 

the  Attorney- General,  to  collect,  digest,  and  report 
all  charters  or  other  documents  relative  to  the  title 
to  the  land  in  the  southwest.  His  report  of  April 
26,  1796,  contained  thirty-five  documents  bearing 
on  the  controversy.77 

In  accordance  with  the  policy  adopted  in  the 
Northwest,  Congress  did  not  desire  to  search  the 
title  to  these  western  lands  too  carefully.  If 
Georgia  would  quit-claim  her  rights  that  would 
settle  the  whole  controversy.  So  in  1796  and  1797 
committees  of  the  Senate  recommended  that  com- 
missioners from  the  United  States  and  Georgia 
meet  to  settle  the  claims  in  question.78  The  second 
report  was  distinctly  hostile  to  Georgia's  claim, 
although  it  favored  an  amicable  settlement.  Con- 
gress acted  on  these  reports  and  in  1798  authorized 
the  President  to  appoint  three  commissioners  to 
meet  with  commissioners  of  Georgia  and  settle  the 
dispute.79  The  act  also  established  in  the  dis- 
puted region  a  territorial  government  similar  to 
that  north  of  the  Ohio,  although  it  stated  that  the 
right  of  Georgia  to  the  jurisdiction  or  lands  would 
not  be  impaired  thereby.  So  when  Georgia,  in  her 
constitution  signed  on  May  30th  of  that  year, 
solemnly  asserted  her  right  to  the  western  lands, 
there  was  apparently  going  to  be  a  clash  of  juris- 
diction. 

President  Adams  nominated  Timothy  Pickering, 
Secretary  of  State,  Oliver  Wolcott,  Secretary  of 

77  p.  L.  I.,  34-67.  78  p.  L.  I.,  71,  79. 

79  Apr.  7,  1798,  ch.  28. 


360  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

the  Treasury,  and  Samuel  Sitgreaves,  as  commis- 
sioners on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  in 
1800  their  powers  were  extended  to  cover  an  in- 
quiry into  private  claims  in  the  region.80  This  act 
also  preserved  the  jurisdiction  and  rights  of  Geor- 
gia. The  next  year  Jefferson  appointed  three  mem- 
bers of  his  cabinet  in  the  place  of  the  former  com- 
missioners and  the  articles  of  agreement  and  ces- 
sion of  April  24,  1802,  were  signed  by  Madison, 
Gallatin  and  Lincoln,  for  the  United  States  and 
by  James  Jackson,  Abrah  Baldwin  and  John  Mill- 
edge,  for  Georgia.81 

Georgia  ceded  her  right  to  the  jurisdiction  and 
soil  of  the  lands  west  of  her  present  limits  to  the 
Mississippi  River.  But  she  laid  down  several  con- 
ditions. A  payment  of  $1,250,000  was  to  be  made 
to  her  out  of  the  first  net  proceeds  82  of  the  land 
sales  there,  "  as  a  consideration  for  the  expenses  in- 
curred by  the  said  state,  in  relation  to  the  said 
territory,"  and  in  order  that  this  sum  might  be 
paid  as  soon  as  possible  a  land  office  was  to  be 
opened  within  twelve  months  of  the  ratification  of 
the  agreement  by  the  State.  Legal  grants  from  the 
governments  of  West  Florida  or  of  Spain  as  well 
as  claims  under  the  Georgia  Act  of  1785  were  to  be 
confirmed.  All  the  other  lands  were,  after  the  pay- 
ment of  the  million  and  a  quarter  to  Georgia,  to  be 
considered  as  a  common  fund,  to  be  faithfully  dis- 

so  May  10,  1800.  ch.  60. 

si  P.  L.  I.,  125-6.     Donaldson,  80. 

82  Gross  proceeds  less  expenses  of  surveys  and  sale. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION     36l 

posed  of  by  the  United  States,  with  this  exception 
that  Congress  might,  within  one  year,  appropriate 
5,000,000  acres  for  the  satisfaction  of  other  claims 
to  land  than  those  already  specified.  Other  con- 
ditions required  the  United  States  to  extinguish, 
as  soon  as  possible,  the  Indian  titles  in  Georgia, 
and  provided  for  the  operation  of  the  provisions 
of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  without  the  anti-slavery 
clause. 

The  United  States,  in  turn,  ceded  to  Georgia  a 
narrow  strip  along  the  northern  line  of  that  state. 
This  was  a  part  of  the  South  Carolina  cession.83 
It  was  the  second  instance  of  a  portion  of  land 
ceded  by  one  old  State  being  turned  over  by  the 
Federal  Government  to  another.84 

The  Georgia  Legislature  ratified  the  cession  on 
June  16,  1802,  while  no  action  was  necessary  on 
the  part  of  Congress.  The  next  year  Congress- 
provided  for  the  sale  of  lands  in  the  newly  acquired 
region,  according  to  the  agreement  in  the  cession.85 

On  the  surface  the  terms  of  the  cession  were  not 
onerous.  The  payment  of  a  million  and  a  quarter 
dollars  to  Georgia  would  not  take  very  long,  the 
claims  of  settlers  under  British  and  Spanish  grants 
would  have  been  confirmed  in  any  case,  but  the  dis- 
tribution of  5,000,000  acres  among  the  unspecified 
claimants  was  bound  to  cause  difficulties.  And,  in- 
cidentally, Georgia  was  much  dissatisfied  later  over 

83  The  inhabitants  of  this  strip  had  in  1800  asked  that  the  terri- 
tory be  turned  back  again  to  South  Carolina,  as  they  were  then 
wholly  destitute  of  government.  P.  L.  I.,  103. 

s*  Pennsylvania  triangle.  so  Mar.  3,  1803,  ch,  37 


362  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

the  conduct  of  the  government  in  the  promised  ex- 
tinguishment of  the  Indian  title  within  the  State 
limits. 

No  sooner  was  it  evident  that  the  United  States 
was  to  take  over  the  western  lands  of  Georgia 
than  the  Yazoo  claimants  turned  to  Congress  for 
relief,  and  for  the  next  fifty  years  their  petitions 
were  before  that  body.  In  most  cases  relief  came 
in  1814,  but  for  others  the  hope  was  long  deferred 
and  never  realized. 

The  Federal  commissioners  reported  on  the  pri- 
vate claims  in  1803  and  after  deciding  against  the 
claims  of  the  companies  under  the  sale  in  1789  and 
expressing  the  opinion  that  the  claimants  under 
the  sale  of  1795  would  not  be  able  to  support  their 
title,  reported  that  it  was  expedient  to  compromise 
with  the  latter  parties.86  They  were  willing  to 
accept  twenty-five  cents  an  acre  for  their  grants,  a 
total  of  some  eight  and  a  half  million  dollars.  The 
commissioners  rejected  this  offer  and  recom- 
mended either  that  the  balance  of  the  5,000,000 
acres  set  aside  in  the  cession,  after  settlers'  rights 
had  been  satisfied,  should  be  divided  equitably 
among  the  companies,  or  that  they  should  receive 
certificates,  $2,500,000  with  interest,  or  $5,000,000 
without  interest,  to  be  paid  out  of  land  sales  after 
the  payment  to  Georgia  was  completed. 

In  the  Act  of  1803  Congress  set  aside  the  5,000,- 
000  acres  for  the  satisfaction  of  proper  claims  but 
no  claim  would  be  considered  unless  it  was  recorded 

se  P.  L.  I.,  132-158. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION 

with  the  Secretary  of  State  before  January  1, 
1804. 

Early  in  1805  the  Secretary  of  State  reported  a 
list  of  titles  filed  with  him.87  Congress  apparently 
had  intended  to  satisfy  these  claims  in  some  meas- 
ure, but  it  was  impossible  to  secure  the  necessary 
legislation.  This  was  due  to  the  struggle  between 
the  Northern  and  Southern  Democrats,  the  latter 
led  by  John  Randolph,  the  bitter  enemy  of  the 
Yazoo  claims.  Year  after  year  the  claimants  would 
memoralize  Congress,  and  year  after  year  Ran- 
dolph would  succeed  in  preventing  remedial  legis- 
lation. The  Act  of  1807  preventing  unauthorized 
settlements  on  the  public  lands  was  aimed  at  the 
Yazoo  claimants  who  sought  to  test  their  titles.88 
Any  person  settling  without  permission  would  for- 
feit whatever  title  he  might  possess,  while  the 
United  States  Marshal  was  instructed  to  remove 
squatters. 

Finally,  however,  the  controversy  was  brought 
before  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Fletcher 
v.  Peck,  in  1809.89  Fletcher  sued  Peck  for  $3000, 
being  the  price  paid  for  15,000  acres  of  land  in 
Georgia  originally  a  part  of  the  Georgia  Com- 
pany's grant.  Fletcher  claimed  that  the  title  of 
this  land  sold  by  Peck  had  been  rendered  faulty 
by  the  Georgia  rescinding  act  of  1796.  After  the 
case  was  twice  argued  the  court  decided,  in  an  opin- 
ion by  Marshall,  that  the  rescinding  act  was  uncon- 

87  P.  L.  I.,  219-246.  88  Mar.  3,  ch.  46. 

89  6  Cranch,  87. 


S64  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

stitutional  inasmuch  as  it  impaired  the  obligation 
of  a  contract.  Therefore  the  sales  of  1795  were 
valid  and  the  claimants  had  good  reason  to  expect 
Congressional  relief. 

Still  Randolph  was  able  to  prevent  favorable 
action.  In  1813  the  Senate  passed  a  compromise 
measure,  and  in  1814,  a  bill  passed  both  Houses, 
for  Randolph  had  been  defeated  at  the  last  elec- 
tion. 

This  act  of  March  31,  1814,  constituted  a  board 
of  commissioners  to  determine  all  controversies 
arising  under  the  various  claims  and  then  provided 
that  $5,000,000  should  be  divided  among  the  claim- 
ants after  they  had  released  to  the  United  States 
all  claim  to  the  lands.  This  amount  was  appor- 
tioned among  the  companies,  the  Georgia  Com- 
pany was  to  receive  $2,250,000,  the  Georgia-Missis- 
sippi, $1,500,000,  the  Tennessee  Company  $600,000 
and  the  Upper  Mississippi  Company  $350,000, 
while  $250,000  was  set  aside  for  claimants  under 
citizen  rights.  These  payments  were  to  be  made  in 
non-interest  bearing  stock  payable  out  of  the  first 
moneys  received  for  lands  in  the  Mississippi  Terri- 
tory after  the  payment  to  Georgia  was  completed, 
but  receivable  in  payment  for  public  land  sold  with- 
in the  territory  in  the  proportion  of  $95.00  in  scrip 
and  $5.00  in  cash  for  every  $100.00. 

The  latter  provision  at  once  caused  trouble  for 
it  conflicted  with  the  pledge  in  the  Georgia  articles 
of  cession  that  the  $1,250,000  due  to  her  would  be 
paid  as  soon  as  possible.  Early  in  1816  the  Missis- 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION      365 

sippi  Stock  began  to  be  received  at  the  land  offices 
and  $52,000  were  received  that  year.  President 
Monroe  therefore  recommended  that  the  United 
States  pay  to  Georgia  the  equivalent  in  cash  of  the 
Mississippi  Stock  received.90  Such  an  act  passed 
in  1817,  and  at  that  time  $447,000  were  still  due  to 
Georgia.91 

In  1818  a  final  report  on  the  settlement  of  the 
Yazoo  claims  was  made  and  it  was  found  that 
$4,282,151  had  been  paid  in  stock.92  This  flood  of 
paper,  receivable  for  land  only  in  the  Mississippi 
Territory  increased  the  speculation  in  lands  there. 
Before  this  stock  could  be  redeemed  in  cash  by  the 
Government  the  payment  of  $1,250,000  to  Georgia 
had  to  be  completed.  This  took  place  in  1817.  In 
addition  to  the  net  proceeds  of  the  land  sales  in 
the  Georgia  cession  there  was  credited  toward  the 
sum  due  from  the  United  States  some  $184,516  of 
the  original  purchase  money  of  the  Yazoo  Com- 
panies remaining  in  the  Treasury  of  Georgia.  The 
land  sales  in  Mississippi  and  Alabama  were  increas- 
ing so  rapidly  that  enough  land  was  sold  in  1816-17 
to  meet  the  entire  payment  due  to  Georgia.  It  was 
not,  however,  until  May  15,  1820,  that  the  United 
States  Treasury  began  to  redeem  the  Mississippi 
stock  in  cash,  paying  sixty-six  per  cent,  of  the 
value  immediately  and  the  balance  the  next  year. 
From  that  date  only  a  few  thousand  dollars  were 
paid  in  for  land,  the  recent  hard  times  rendering 

»o  P.  L.  IH.,279.  si  March  3,  1817,  ch.  36. 

»2  Fin.  III.,  281. 


366  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

currency  more  desirable.  The  total  amount  of 
stock  received  for  lands  in  the  Georgia  cession  was 
$2,447,789.93 

It  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that  the  decision 
of  the  commissioners  in  the  Yazoo  cases  would 
give  universal  satisfaction,  considering  the  length 
of  time  the  lands  had  been  subject  to  transfer  be- 
fore the  relief  was  afforded.  Some  eighty  claims 
were  rejected  entirely  by  the  commissioners  and 
the  claim  of  the  New  England-Mississippi  Com- 
pany was  reduced  because  it  had  not  paid  the  entire 
amount  due  the  Georgia  Company.94  The  former 
company  undertook  a  campaign  for  Congressional 
relief.  At  first  the  Senate  reports  were  unfavor- 
able but  later  Congress  was  advised  to  grant  the 
$132,425  desired.  Congress  failed  to  act,  how- 
ever, and  in  1864  the  case  was  decided  against  the 
Company  in  the  Court  of  Claims.95 

In  addition  to  the  Yazoo  claims  there  were  other 
land  claims  for  the  Federal  Government  to  satisfy. 
One  of  those  was  the  claim  of  "  The  Commission- 
ers appointed  by  Georgia  to  examine  certain  lands 
on  the  Tennessee  River."  Seven  commissioners 
were  appointed  by  Georgia  in  February,  1784,  to 
examine  and  report  on  the  quantity,  quality  and 
circumstances  of  the  lands  lying  in  the  Big  Bend 
of  the  Tennessee  River,  and  to  grant  warrants  of 
survey  there.96  Five  of  the  original  commissioners, 
with  a  sixth,  serving  in  the  place  of  one  of  the  first 

»3  P.  L.  VI.,  489.  »«  1  Court  of  Claims,  135. 

s*  P.  L.  III.,  548.  »«  P.  L.  III.,  370,  416,  421,  515. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS   OF    CESSION      367 

appointees,  made  the  investigations,  granted  some 
warrants,  and  reported  to  the  Legislature  on  De- 
cember 22,  1785.  The  next  year  the  state  granted 
five  thousand  acres  to  each  of  the  commissioners 
who  had  performed  their  duty,  but  the  lands  were 
not  located  at  the  time.  The  matter  rested  until 
1795,  when  in  the  Yazoo  Act  it  was  provided  that 
out  of  the  lands  sold  to  the  Tennessee  Company 
fifty  thousand  acres  should  be  reserved  for  the 
commissioners,  to  be  held  by  them  as  tenants  in 
common  and  not  as  joint  tenants.  No  action  was 
taken  under  this  grant  because  of  the  prompt  re- 
peal of  the  act  of  sale,  nor  were  the  claims  recorded 
with  the  Secretary  of  State  in  1803  in  order  to  take 
advantage  of  the  5,000,000  acres  set  apart  for  out- 
standing claims.  In  1816  the  claims  were  laid  be- 
fore Congress  by  Thomas  Carr,  the  only  surviving 
commissioner,  and  by  the  heirs  of  Colonel  Donel- 
son,  and  of  John  Sevier.  Andrew  Jackson,  who 
had  married  the  daughter  of  Colonel  Donelson, 
represented  the  latter's  heirs.  Congress  had  to  de- 
termine whether  the  claims  were  valid  against  the 
United  States,  and  if  so,  to  what  extent.  It  would 
have  been  an  easy  matter  to  reject  the  claims  be- 
cause they  were  not  presented  within  the  period 
named  in  the  Act  of  1803  or,  possibly,  on  their 
merits,  as  the  House  Committee  on  Private  Land 
Claims  advised  in  1820.97  But  after  seven  years 
Congress  agreed  to  make  good  the  grant  of  five 
thousand  acres  to  each  commissioner,  offered  by 

»T  P.  L.  Ill-  421. 


368  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

Georgia  in  1785,  the  acceptance  of  which  was  to 
serve  as  a  release  of  any  other  claim,  such  as  that 
under  the  Act  of  1795.98  These  lands  were  at  first 
to  be  located  within  Mississippi  or  Alabama  and 
within  two  years,  but  three  other  acts  extended  the 
time  limit  to  1837  and  permitted  locations  in 
Louisiana  and  Arkansas. 

Six  years  later  Congress  satisfied  another  out- 
standing obligation  of  very  doubtful  validity.  This 
was  in  the  case  of  John  Reily  who,  in  1786,  had 
purchased  from  Abraham  Lefavour  a  land  warrant 
for  one  thousand  acres,  issued  under  the  Georgia 
act  of  February  25,  1784."  These  warrants  of 
surveys  were  sold  at  the  rate  of  three  shillings  per 
annum  in  gold  or  silver  for  every  thousand  acres. 
In  this  case  the  warrant  was  never  located,  the 
reasons  being  the  hostile  attitude  of  the  Indians 
followed  by  the  cession  of  the  western  lands  to  the 
United  States.  Actual  settlers  under  any  Georgia 
grant  were  protected  by  the  articles  of  cession,  but 
all  other  grants  were  supposed  to  be  covered  by 
the  appropriation  of  five  million  acres  and  the 
claims  were  to  be  recorded  before  January  1,  1804. 
In  1830  Congress  was  more  liberal  in  its  control 
of  the  public  lands.  In  this  case  it  held  that  John 
Reily  had  paid  a  valuable  consideration  for  his 
warrant  of  survey,  that  it  had  not  been  satisfied 
by  Georgia,  and  that  as  Congress  had  succeeded 
to  Georgia's  control  of  the  western  lands  it  was 
incumbent  on  Congress  to  satisfy  the  claim.  This 

»« Majr  24,  1824.  W  P,  L.  VI.,  160. 


SATISFACTION    OF    DEEDS    OF    CESSION      369 

was  done  by  the  act  of  May  81,  1830,  Mr.  Reily 
being  authorized  to  locate  one  thousand  acres  of 
land  within  the  Georgia  cession. 

After  the  obligations  assumed  in  the  deed  of 
cession  had  been  fulfilled,  so  far  as  they  concerned 
land  titles,  there  was  another  article  to  cause  dis- 
cussion between  the  United  States  and  Georgia. 
The  promise  of  the  former  to  proceed  to  the  rapid 
extinguishment  of  the  Indian  title  in  Georgia  can- 
not be  discussed  here.100 

100  See  Phillips,   Georgia  and  State   Rights,   A.   H.  A.   Reports, 
1901,  v.  2. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE     EARLY     LAND     SYSTEM  AND     THE     WESTWARD 
MOVEMENT 

The  most  striking  development  in  the  study  of 
American  history  within  recent  years  has  been  the 
recognition  of  the  economic  and  social  forces  which 
have  worked  toward  the  making  of  the  American 
nation.1  Political  history,  which  formerly  was 
emphasized  to  the  exclusion  of  almost  everything 
else,  has  yielded  to  humbler  and  yet  more  impor- 
tant themes.  The  economic  aspects  of  slavery  have 
found  a  place  along  with  the  political  phases  of 
that  system.  The  life  and  development  of  the 
people  is  considered  of  more  importance  than  a 
record  of  battles  or  an  analysis  of  Congressional 
debates.  And  the  one  great  and  comprehensive 
movement  in  our  history  is  found  in  the  westward 
expansion  of  our  people  from  the  coast  towns  of 
Colonial  days  across  the  Appalachian  Mountains  to 
the  Mississippi  Valley,  then  to  the  plains  of  the 
farther  West  and  again  over  mountains  and  across 
deserts  to  the  rich  valleys  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 
Because  of  this  present  and  increasing  interest 
it  seems  fitting  that  this  study  of  an  economic  fac- 
tor in  our  development  should  close  with  a  restate- 
ment of  the  various  ways  in  which  the  early 

i  Turner,  The  Rise  of  the  New  West,  xvii. 
370 


EARLY   LAND    SYSTEM  371 

national  land  system  affected  the  westward  move- 
ment of  our  peoples.  This  must  be  a  restatement, 
for  every  chapter  has  been  concerned  with  the 
westward  movement  in  so  far  as  it  has  described 
how  the  public  lands  passed  into  private  ownership, 
but  the  details,  necessary  in  tracing  the  develop- 
ment of  the  land  system,  may  have  served  to  con- 
fuse the  general  statements  which  deserve  the  more 
attention. 

The  movement  of  settlement  beyond  the  Appala- 
chian Mountains  was  well  .under  way  before  the 
public  domain  was  formed.  At  the  close  of  the 
Revolution  pioneer  settlements  were  found  in  the 
back  counties  of  Pennsylvania  and  in  the  western 
lands  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  correspond- 
ing to  the  eastern  portions  of  the  present  States  of 
West  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee.  For  the 
next  twenty  years  the  westward  movement,  as 
generally  understood,  was  confined  largely  to  these 
regions,  although  in  many  parts  of  the  original 
States  frontier  conditions  existed,  notably  in  Maine, 
Vermont,  Western  New  York  and  Central 
Georgia.  It  was  not  until  after  1800  that  any 
great  movement  began  toward  the  public  lands  in 
the  northwest.  This  fact  is  sometimes  overlooked, 
but  the  early  westward  movement  was  made  into 
state  lands  and  not  into  the  public  domain.  In 
theory  after  1790  Tennessee  was  a  part  of  the 
public  domain,  but,  as  has  been  shown,  the  lands 
there  were  being  taken  up  under  North  Carolina 
laws. 


372  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

In  the  period  from  1800  to  1820,  although  emi- 
gration was  moving  into  the  public  domain  north 
and  south  of  the  Ohio  and  west  of  the  Mississippi, 
it  must  be  remembered  that  only  a  portion  of  the 
western  people  were  holding  lands  purchased  at 
the  land  offices.  Of  the  settlers  west  of  the  Appa- 
lachians in  1820  fully  one-half  had  taken  up  lands 
in  regions  which  never  had  come  under  the  land 
system,  notably  in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  And 
of  the  settlers  in  the  public  land  States  and  terri- 
tories the  greater  part  were  located  on  land  which 
had  not  been  surveyed  and  sold  under  the  general 
system.  Most  of  these  settlers  held  lands  claimed 
under  foreign  titles,  the  investigation  and  confir- 
mation of  which  had  delayed  the  surveys  and  sales 
in  the  regions  where  they  were  to  be  found.  Others 
had  taken  up  military  bounty  lands,  either  in  the 
Revolutionary  bounty  land  district  in  Ohio,  or  in 
the  districts  in  Illinois,  Missouri  and  Arkansas  set 
apart  for  the  bounties  of  the  War  of  1812.  These 
lands  could  generally  be  had  for  less  than  the  mini- 
mum price  of  the  public  lands.  In  Ohio  were  the 
reserves  of  Connecticut  and  Virginia  and  the  tracts 
sold  to  the  Ohio  Company  and  to  John  Cleve 
Symmes,  in  all  of  which  cheap  lands  were  to  be 
had.  And  in  each  state  and  territory  one  thirty- 
sixth  of  the  surveyed  lands  were  reserved  for 
schools  and  other  lands  for  universities.  These 
reserves  were  later  to  be  turned  over  to  the  States 
to  be  disposed  of  by  them,  but  in  1820  no  part  of 
these  reserves  had  been  sold.  Some  of  the  States 


EAllLY    LAND    SYSTEM  373 

had  tried  to  lease  them,  but  in  most  cases  the  lands 
were  being  located  upon  by  squatters.2  And  this 
serves  to  introduce  a  most  interesting  character 
whose  position  was  gradually  changing  throughout 
these  years.  The  squatter  took  up  land  in  spite 
of  the  system  and  in  order  to  bring  him  under  it 
some  sort  of  preemption  was  considered  necessary. 
Enough  has  been  said,  therefore,  to  indicate  that 
before  1820  the  regulations  for  the  sale  of  public 
lands  affected  only  a  portion,  not  more  than  a 
fourth  at  most,  of  the  men  who  were  engaged  in 
the  westward  movement.3 

2  The  term  "  squatter  "  first  appears  in  the  Congressional  debates 
on  February  14,  1806,  when  Mr.  Morrow,  speaking  of  conditions  in 
Indiana,  said :  "  There  are  some  small  tracts  of  land  on  which  what 
are  called  squatters  are  settled,  and  where  already  improvements 
have  been  made,  which  would  sell  for  four  or  six  dollars  per  acre." 
—Annals,  1805-6,  409. 

s  The  census  of  1820  showed  the  following  population  in  the  pub- 
lic land  states  and  territories: 

Ohio 581,295 

Indiana    147,178 

Illinois 55,162 

Michigan   Territory 8,765 

Mississippi   75,448 

Alabama    127,901 

Louisiana  152,923 

Missouri  Territory  66,557 

Arkansas    14,255 


1,229,484 
Western  states  not  subject  to  the  public  land  system: 

Kentucky    422,771 

Tennessee  .  564,135 


986,906 

The  "  Westward  Movement "  was  also  in  operation  in  western  New 
York,  western  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  Georgia,  etc. 


374  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

With  these  facts  in  mind  it  is  easier  to  follow  the 
development  of  the  land  laws  and  to  note  their 
relation  to  the  Westward  movement.  When  the 
land  ordinance  of  1785  was  enacted  the  only  legiti- 
mate settlement  in  the  Northwest  was  to  be  found 
around  the  French  villages  at  Vincennes,  Kaskas- 
kia,  Cahokia,  and  a  few  smaller  posts — the  settle- 
ments at  Detroit,  Green  Bay  and  Mackinac  did 
not  come  under  American  control  until  1796.  Some 
settlers  had  crossed  the  Ohio  from  Pennsylvania 
and  Virginia  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  a  few 
settling  along  that  stream  and  others  taking  up 
land  near  the  French  establishments.  Congress 
took  a  high  stand  regarding  these  unauthorized 
settlements.  It  looked  upon  the  western  lands  as 
a  great  source  of  revenue  and  for  that  reason  re- 
fused to  allow  them  to  be  taken  up  by  land-hungry 
settlers.  Troops  were  sent  along  the  Ohio  in  1787 
to  drive  off  the  intruders  and  destroy  their  cabins. 
More  efficacious  than  the  troops  were  the  Indians, 
and  their  hostile  attitude  toward  all  settlement  in 
the  Northwest  kept  back  the  pioneers  until  a 
stronger  Federal  government  was  able  to  admin- 
ister the  public  lands. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  but  that,  had  the  Indian 

By  June  30,  1820,  only  some  17,600,000  acres  of  public  land  had 
been  sold  at  the  land  offices,  while  a  rough  estimate  would  show 
that  fully  two-thirds  as  much  had  been  reserved  for  private  land 
claims,  military  bounties,  and  education.  No  land  had  been  sold 
in  Louisiana,  save  a  few  thousand  acres  placed  on  sale  by  mistake  at 
Opelousas.  None  had  been  sold  in  Arkansas  Territory,  less  than 
50,000  acres  in  Michigan,  and  although  about  1,500,000  acres  had 
been  sold  in  Missouri  almost  half  that  amount  was  later  relinquished. 


EARLY   LAND    SYSTEM  375 

relations  been  more  settled  in  the  Northwest,  the 
national  land  system  would  have  developed  along 
entirely  different  lines.  The  settlers  from  Ken- 
tucky would  have  crossed  the  Ohio  in  such  numbers 
that  the  weak  government  of  the  Confederation 
could  not  have  dispossessed  them  and  it  would  have 
had  difficulty  in  extending  the  rectangular  surveys 
over  lands  held  by  any  considerable  number  of 
settlers  under  "  tomahawk  rights."  A  system  of 
warrants  and  surveys,  to  which  these  settlers  were 
accustomed,  would  probably  then  have  been  intro- 
duced. And  with  the  land  taken  up  in  this  way 
it  is  doubtful  if  the  land  sales  to  companies  could 
have  been  effected.  It  was  well  for  the  national 
land  system  that  the  early  westward  movement 
was  directed  toward  state  lands. 

The  Ordinance  of  1785  applied  only  to  land 
northwest  of  the  Ohio.  Its  terms  entirely  ignored 
the  men  who  were  then  moving  toward  that  region 
and  who  had  the  greatest  interest  in  the  lands.  For 
they  wanted  cheap  lands  and  without  delay,  where- 
as the  system  called  for  expensive  surveys  which 
took  time  for  execution.  And  pending  the  surveys 
they  wanted  preemption,  the  right  to  locate  where 
they  pleased  and  then  secure  the  tract  for  a  nom- 
inal price  when  the  lands  were  placed  on  sale.  In- 
stead of  prior  rectangular  surveys  the  western 
pioneer  at  that  time  was  in  favor  of  a  land  system 
based  on  low-priced  warrants  and  indiscriminate 
surveys  so  run  that  the  first  comer  could  secure 
the  river-bottoms  and  other  good  land.  The 


376  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

Ordinance  of  1785  favored  settlers  accustomed  to 
the  methods  of  New  England.  The  surveys,  the 
land  grants  for  education,  the  sale  of  half  the  land 
in  entire  townships,  showed  that  township-planting 
was  in  the  mind  of  Congress.  The  smallest  tract 
a  man  could  buy  was  a  lot  of  six  hundred  and  forty 
acres  at  one  dollar  an  acre  in  depreciated  paper, 
and  only  half  the  townships  were  offered  in  this 
way.  It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  why  the  land 
sales  under  the  Ordinance  were  so  small.  The  In- 
dian hostilities  kept  back  all  but  the  hardiest 
pioneers.  Settlers  demanded  land  along  the  Ohio, 
but  the  Seven  Ranges  (of  which  only  four  were 
placed  on  sale  in  1787)  extended  forty-two  miles 
from  the  river  at  one  point.  Less  than  73,000  acres 
of  land  were  actually  sold  in  1787,  a  petty  figure 
compared  with  the  great  tracts  being  taken  up  in 
Kentucky  and  Tennessee  under  military  bounty 
and  treasury  warrants.  And  not  one  entire  town- 
ship was  sold,  which  showed  that  for  the  time  being 
township-planting  was  not  in  favor  in  the  west. 
Some  settlement  was  at  once  made  on  the  lands 
purchased  in  1787  and  the  census  of  1790  showed 
other  settlements  at  Marietta,  where  the  Ohio  Com- 
pany had  founded  a  settlement  in  1788,  and  in  the 
Symmes  purchase,  while  squatters  had  located  on 
unsurveyed  lands  along  the  river. 

The  next  sale  of  public  lands  took  place  in  1796, 
under  the  act  of  that  year,  but  it,  too,  was  confined 
to  lands  in  the  Seven  Ranges.  In  1800  Ohio  had  a 
population  of  45,000  but  orly  a  small  part  of  this 


EARLY    LAND    SYSTEM  377 

was  settled  on  lands  secured  under  the  acts  of 
1785  and  1796.  After  Wayne's  decisive  defeat  of 
the  Indians  in  1794  and  the  Greeneville  treaty  of 
the  next  year  the  first  considerable  migrations  be- 
gan to  Ohio.  But  no  new  "  Congress  lands  "  were 
open  to  selection,  so  these  pioneers  turned  to  the 
private  holdings  then  in  the  market.  Some  located 
on  the  lands  of  the  Ohio  Company,  but  more  pre- 
ferred the  fine  lands  in  Symmes'  purchase,  between 
the  Great  and  the  Little  Miami.  And  from  Ken- 
tucky and  Virginia  came  the  holders  of  Virginia 
Revolutionary  bounty  warrants  to  locate  them  in 
the  Virginia  Reserve.  Congress  had  thrown  this 
region  open  to  the  location  of  these  warrants  in 
1790  but  settlement  did  not  take  place  to  any. 
extent  until  after  1795,  and  in  the  following  year 
Chillicothe,  for  a  time  the  principal  town,  was 
founded.  The  population  of  Ohio  was  also  swelled 
by  the  emigrants  who  were  locating  in  the  Con- 
necticut Reserve,  which,  of  course,  was  never  a 
part  of  the  public  lands.  In  the  last  decade  the 
population  of  Indiana  Territory  had  increased, 
but  the  new  settlers  were  locating  on  lands  pur- 
chased from  the  French  inhabitants  or  else  were 
squatting  near  their  villages.  No  provision  what- 
soever had  been  made  for  the  survey  or  sale  of  any 
land  in  the  present  states  of  Indiana  and  Illinois 
because  of  the  Indian  title.4 

The  Act  of  1796  was  of  importance  mainly  as  a 

*  A  narrow  strip  in  southeastern   Indiana  and   a  tract   including 
Vincennes,  had  been  ceded  by  the  Greeneville  treaty. 


378  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

statement  of  principles,  for  but  little  land  was  sold 
under  it.  And  its  terms  again  ignored  the  desires 
of  the  western  men,  although  a  slight  concession 
was  made.  The  most  important  feature  of  the 
act  was  the  endorsement  of  the  system  of  surveys 
which  had  been  under  attack  ever  since  the  Seven 
Ranges  were  laid  off.  From  this  time  no  attempt 
was  made  to  change  the  system  although  it  was 
occasionally  criticised.  The  accuracy  of  the  sur- 
veys and  the  sure  title  conveyed  by  the  deed  served 
to  minimize  the  delays  caused  by  the  system,  and 
the  inconvenient  divisions  occasionally  created  by 
the  rectangular  lines.  These  surveys  were  not  pop- 
ular in  the  West  at  this  time  because  the  bulk  of 
the  settlers  came  from  the  Southern  States,  where 
a  different  system  was  in  vogue.  The  two  dollars 
an  acre  minimum  was  not  well  thought  of  when 
coupled  with  only  a  year's  credit,  for  in  all  the 
other  western  regions  land  was  much  cheaper  and 
the  credit  longer.  And,  finally,  the  minimum  tract 
was  still  six  hundred  and  forty  acres.  It  was  absurd 
to  suppose  a  typical  pioneer  able  to  pay  $1280.00 
within  a  year,  yet  the  Senate  had  refused  to  permit 
the  sale  of  quarter  sections.  The  one-year  credit 
was  the  only  concession,  although  slight  indeed. 

Under  this  act  less  than  50,000  acres  were  sold 
in  1796  in  the  Seven  Ranges.  The  next  sales  took 
place  in  1800,  under  the  act  of  that  year,  but  these 
were  also  in  the  same  tract.  It  was  not  until  1801 
that  other  land  in  Ohio  was  offered  for  sale. 

Under  the  Act  of  1800  the  land  system  became  a 


EARLY    LAND    SYSTEM  379 

real  factor  in  the  westward  movement,  and  it  was 
the  five-year  credit  period  which  rendered  the  act 
effective.  Without  the  credit  little  land  could  be 
sold  for  two  dollars  an  acre,  but  with  it  a  man 
could  pay  fifty  cents  an  acre  and  the  balance  within 
five  years.  The  minimum  lot  was  now  reduced  to 
three  hundred  and  twenty  acres,  so  that  a  payment 
of  one  hundred  and  sixty  dollars  entitled  a  settler 
to  the  use  of  a  half  section  pending  the  payment  of 
the  balance — even  if  he  were  forced  to  forfeit  the 
land  he  had  had  five  years'  occupation  for  that 
amount.  And  the  land  offices  were  brought  nearer 
to  the  people — four  being  established  in  southern 
Ohio.  M 

For  twenty  years  the  Act  of  1800  regulated  the 
sales  of  public  lands,  being  only  modified  as  to  the 
computation  of  interest  charges  and  by  the  intro- 
duction of  quarter  section  tracts  in  1804  and  a 
limited  number  of  eighty  acre  tracts  in  1817. 

JDuring  this  period  the  public  lands  were  admin- 
istered as  a  source  of  revenue.  For  this  and  for 
other  reasons  the  representatives  of  the  Eastern 
States  supported  the  existing  land  system  and  re- 
sisted all  change.  The  two  dollar  minimum  and 
the  credit  system  were  early  denounced  by  men 
who  best  knew  the  conditions  in  the  West,  but  east- 
ern men  were  unwilling  to  reduce  the  minimum 
further — the  price  still  was  considered  cheap  and 
land  values  had  fallen  in  the  East  because  of  the* 
abundant  lands  available  beyond  the  mountains. 
It  was  believed  that  high  land  values-  in  the  West 


380  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

would  stop  the  drain  of  population  and  prevent  the 
rise  of  wages  in  the  industrial  states  of  the  East. 
Moreover  even  Western  Congressmen  supported 
the  two  dollar  minimum  because  they  realized  that 
a  reduction  in  price  would  be  accompanied  by  an 
abolition  of  credit,  and  they  felt  that  their  con- 
stituents favored  the  credit  system.  The  revenue 
theory  of  management  clashed  with  the  needs  of 
the  actual  settler.  It  prevented  a  reduction  in 
price,  a  granting  of  donations  to  pioneers,  and  even 
a  general  preemption.  But  at  this  period  Congress 
felt  that  there  were  other  interests  to  be  considered 
aside  from  those  of  the  advance  guard  of  the  west- 
ward movement. 

This  was  the  period  of  the  credit  system,  when 
men  were  tempted  to  invest  their  entire  capital  in 
a  first  payment  in  the  hope  that  good  times  or  a 
generous  Congress  would  easily  provide  for  the 
balance.  Although  the  extended  credit  was 
designed  to  help  the  settler  it  frequently  served  to 
imperil  his  solvency.  As  early  as  1804  Gallatin 
pointed  out  that  cash  sales,  based  on  a  reduced 
price  and  a  smaller  minimum  lot,  should  be  intro- 
duced, but  it  took  sixteen  years  of  increasing  finan- 
cial difficulties  to  finally  arouse  Congress  against 
the  evils  of  the  well-intended  system.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  credit  system  did  not  have  a  fair  oppor- 
tunity to  prove  its  worth.  The  passing  of  relief 
acts  extending  the  period  of  forfeiture  served  to 
weaken  the  penalties  of  the  system.  Settlers  began 
to  believe  that  Congress  would  soon  come  to  their 


EARLY    LAND    SYSTEM  381 

rescue  by  reducing  the  outstanding  debt,  and  the 
relief  acts  after  1820  justified  this  confidence.  If 
Congress  intended  to  insist  upon  using  the  lands  as 
a  source  of  revenue  it  should  have  insisted  upon  a 
strict  enforcement  of  the  terms  of  its  land  system. 
If  penalties  had  been  rigorously  enforced  there 
would  have  been  less  land  speculation.  The  system 
in  operation  really  discriminated  against  the  faith- 
ful purchaser,  for  those  who  owed  money  in  1820 
received  later  a  substantial  reduction  in  their  in- 
debtedness. 

So  much  for  the  system — what,  on  the  other 
hand,  did  the  actual  settlers  desire  during  this  pe- 
riod? First  of  all,  they  desired  a  wide  choice  of 
land.  They  wanted  the  land  system  extended 
rapidly  and  over  a  large  territory.  At  times  they 
could  not  wait  for  the  Indian  title  to  be  extin- 
guished, but  must  push  on  to  the  choice  lands  re- 
tained by  the  Red  Men.  At  all  times  they  urged 
the  opening  up  of  the  Indian  lands,  and  Govern- 
ment never  could  move  fast  enough  along  these 
lines.  But  this  was  not  the  fault  of  the  land  sys- 
tem, for  until  Government  had  acquired  the  lands 
the  system  could  not  be  extended  to  them.  So, 
when  the  lands  were  finally  secured,  the  pioneers 
demanded  that  the  tracts  be  at  once  opened  for 
settlement.  This  meant  the  extension  of  the  sur- 
veys, and  once  more  Government  could  not  keep 
pace  with  the  settlers.  The  surveys  took  time  and 
required  money,  and  they  were  extended  over 
good  and  bad  land  alike.  The  first  comers  natu- 


382  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

rally  desired  the  choicest  lands.  They  would  push 
a  few  miles  further  into  the  wilderness  in  order 
to  secure  a  choicer  location.  Soon  the  reports  of 
the  Surveyor-General  showed  that  millions  of 
acres  of  surveyed  lands  remained  unsold,  while 
settlers  were  complaining  that  the  surveys  were 
not  being  extended  rapidly  enough.  This  was  one 
reason  for  the  squatting  evil.  Many  men  took  up 
land  in  that  way,  not  because  they  could  not  afford 
to  pay  for  their  location,  but  because  they  could 
settle  upon  better  land  than  was  then  open  for 
sale  at  the  nearest  land  office.  These  were  the  men 
who  sought  preemption. 

Another  complaint  of  the  settlers  was  that  the 
land  offices  were  too  widely  scattered.  Figures 
were  prepared  showing  that  intervals  of  from 
twenty-five  to  over  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles 
existed  between  the  neighboring  land  offices.  This 
was  a  real  hardship  in  those  days  of  difficult. trans- 
portation, and  yet  it  was  but  a  condition  of  the 
frontier  life.  New  land  offices  were  established  as 
business  warranted.  After  an  office  was  once 
opened  it  was  not  easy  to  close  it.  The  five  offices 
in  Ohio  transacted  less  business  in  1819  than  was 
handled  at  eight  separate  offices  nearer  the  fron- 
tier. The  late  comers  could  secure  their  lands  with 
less  annoyance,  but  the  choice  lands  had  been  taken 
in  the  meantime. 

The  greatest  desire  of  the  frontiersmen,  so  far 
as  the  land  system  was  concerned,  was  for  preemp- 
tion. This  was  advocated  as  a  merited  right  be- 


EARLY    LAND    SYSTEM  383 

cause  of  the  delay  in  opening  the  land  for  sale. 
This  delay  was  due  in  part  to  the  execution  of  the 
surveys,  but  more  troublesome  were  the  delays 
occasioned  by  the  private  land  claims  arising  from 
foreign  titles.  Until  these  claims  were  confirmed 
or  rejected  no  public  land  sales  could  safely  be 
made.  But  while  the  commissioners  were  strug- 
gling with  the  claims  in  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michi- 
gan, Alabama,  Mississippi,  and  in  the  Louisiana 
country,  the  pioneers  pushed  into  the  newly  ac- 
quired region  and  took  up  land,  either  under  a 
foreign  claim  or  else  by  calmly  squatting  on  the 
public  land  or  on  the  claim  of  some  ancient  resi- 
dent. These  settlers  took  the  position  that  they 
would  gladly  have  purchased  the  land  if  it  had 
been  on  sale,  but  as  the  government  was  dilatory, 
surely  they  should  not  be  penalized  by  having  their 
improvements  bought  in  over  their  heads  by  some 
less  adventurous  settler.  On  the  other  hand,  Con- 
gress as  early  as  1807  passed  strict  laws  against 
unauthorized  settlement,  so  that  the  men  who  de- 
manded preemption  were  really  violators  of  the 
law  of  the  land. 

But  in  this  case,  as  in  many  others,  the  bark  of 
Congress  was  much  worse  than  its  bite.  Grad- 
ually it  began  to  adopt  the  point  of  view  of  the 
pioneers,  until  by  1820  it  had  become  the  custom 
to  grant  preemption  for  a  limited  period  in  every 
region  where,  for  special  reasons,  the  land  sales 
were  delayed. 

A  rapid  summary  of  this  legislation  shows  how 


384  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

the  preemption  idea  gained  strength  in  Congress 
until  it  was  finally  recognized  in  the  general  pre- 
emption act  of  1841. 

Preemption  for  settlers  was  urged  in  the  first 
debates  on  the  land  system  in  1789,  and  it  was 
accepted  as  a  legitimate  measure  when,  in  1790, 
Congress  agreed,  as  a  condition  of  the  North  Caro- 
lina cession,  to  confirm  the  preemption  rights  of 
settlers  in  Tennessee.  In  1799  the  first  preemp- 
tion act  was  passed,  granting  the  privilege  to  those 
settlers  in  Ohio  who  had  purchased  lands  from 
Symmes  to  which  he  had  no  title.5  This  was  an 
act  of  grace  on  the  part  of  Congress. 

The  first  act  of  a  more  general  nature  was  in 

1803,  which  offered  preemption  to  persons  resi- 
dent in  the  Georgia  cession  at  that  date.    But  in 
this  case  no  land  was  placed  on  sale  for  three 
years  after  the  act,  so  settlers  coming  in  during 
this  interval  had  to  become  squatters  or  else  pur- 
chase private  land  claims,  but  to  many  of  these  a 
preemption  was  granted  in  1808.     The  early  acts 
for  Louisiana  offered  no  concessions  to  settlers 
after  the  date  of  the  American  occupation,   al- 
though the  opening  of  the  land  offices  was  bound 
to  be  long  delayed  by  private  claims. 

At  this  time  the  surveys1  in  Michigan  were  being 
delayed  for  the  same  reason,  so  in  1808  a  preemp- 
tion was  granted  to  settlers  who  were  there  before 

1804,  which  was  the  date  of  the  act  authorizing 

5  Special  preemption  acts  were  passed  in  1794,  for  Ephraim  Kim- 
bcrly;  in  1796,  for  Ebenezar  Zane;  and  in  1798,  for  Elie  Williams. 


EARLY    LAND    SYSTEM  385 

the  sale  of  lands  in  Michigan.  But,  although  the 
sale  was  authorized  at  that  time,  it  did  not  actually 
commence  until  1818,  so  the  preemption  was  not  a 
liberal  one,  and  much  squatting  resulted.  In  Illi- 
nois the  sales  were  also  delayed,  but  there  the  act 
of  1813  granted  a  preemption  of  one  hundred  and 
sixty  acres  up  to  two  weeks  before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  public  sale,  and  was  therefore  more 
satisfactory  than  any  of  the  preceding  measures. 
No  land  could  be  claimed  under  any  of  these  acts 
until  it  had  been  surveyed.  The  next  year  a  sim- 
ilar act  was  finally  passed  for  Louisiana  and  Mis- 
souri. The  last  preemption  act  within  the  period 
was  that  applying  to  the  "district  east  of  the 
Island  of  New  Orleans."  This  region,  claimed  by 
Spain,  had  been  occupied  by  force,  partly  in  1810 
and  the  rest  in  1812.  The  Act  of  1819  granted  a 
donation  to  settlers  there  before  April  15,  1813, 
and  a  preemption  to  settlers  before  April  12,  1814. 
By  1820,  therefore,  Congress  had  recognized 
squatting  to  the  extent  of  granting  some  measure 
of  preemption  to  every  one  of  the  public  land 
States  and  territories  save  Indiana.  With  these 
precedents  in  mind,  a  determined  effort  was  made 
in  1820,  at  the  time  of  the  great  alteration  of  the 
land  laws,  to  enact  a  general  preemption  law  cov- 
ering one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  up  to  two  weeks 
before  the  commencement  of  land  sales  in  any  dis- 
trict. But  although  the  Western  Senators  sup- 
ported the  measure,  it  was  carefully  laid  on  the 
table,  for  the  revenue  idea  of  administration  was 


386  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

too  strong  to  permit  the  sale  of  the  choicest  land 
at  the  minimum  price  to  the  law-breaking  pioneers. 

From  1820  to  1841  the  representatives  of  the 
public  land  States  urged  the  desirability  of  a  gen- 
eral preemption  act.  Beginning  in  1830,  tempo- 
rary preemption  laws,  covering  a  limited  period 
but  of  a  general  nature,  were  passed.  Finally,  in 
1841,  a  general  preemption  law  was  enacted  and 
the  long  struggle  of  the  pioneer  for  recognition 
and  for  the  right  to  reap  the  reward  of  his  enter- 
prise was  won. 

The  growth  of  the  sentiment  in  favor  of  pre- 
emption, therefore,  was  parallel  to  the  changing 
conception  of  the  ultimate  object  of  land  legisla- 
tion. So  long  as  revenue  was  the  end  to  be  sought, 
preemption  was  undeniably  bad.  But  if  the  fur- 
therance of  settlement  was  to  be  the  desire  of  Con- 
gress, then  preemption  was  but  a  step  toward  the 
ultimate  goal — the  granting  of  homesteads  to  set- 
tlers. So  during  the  half  century  of  land  legis- 
lation the  squatter  developed  from  a  trespasser,  a 
violator  of  the  laws  of  the  Union,  to  a  public  bene- 
factor, a  man  whose  bravery  and  whose  sacrifices 
had  opened  great  areas  to  peaceful  settlement  and 
who  merited  well  of  the  nation.  The  "  actual  set- 
tler "  always  received  a  certain  sympathy  in  Con- 
gress. The  land  laws  were  stringent  enough  to 
punish  intrusions  upon  the  public  domain,  but  re- 
membering how  frequently  squatters  hold  lands 
even  within  our  cities,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how 
difficult  it  was  to  enforce  the  laws  prohibiting  un- 


EARLY    LAND    SYSTEM  387 

lawful  settlement  along  the  thousands  of  miles  of 
the  public  land  frontier.  So  it  became  the  custom 
not  to  enforce  these  stringent  laws.  And  after  the 
pioneer  had  once  crossed  the  line  and  made  his 
improvements,  it  became  more  and  more  difficult 
for  Congress  to  refrain  from  securing  him  in  the 
rewards  of  his  hardihood.  Except  where  there 
were  confirmed  foreign  claims,  the  frontier  of  set- 
tlement should  legally  have  been  along  the  frontier 
of  surveys.  But  no  Western  Congressman  ex- 
pected that  the  more  restless  of  his  constituents 
would  march  in  procession  with  rod-men  and 
chain-carriers.  The  laws  for  the  disposition  of  the 
public  lands  assumed  that  when  a  group  of  town- 
ships were  cried  at  public  auction  the  land  would 
be  virgin,  untamed  and  unencumbered.  But  too 
often  the  surveyors'  lines  had  run  beside  log  cabins 
and  half-faced  camps,  and  the  best  tracts  had  been 
cleared  and  fenced.  The  land  system  demanded 
that  these  quarter-sections  be  sold  to  the  highest 
bidder,  and  it  frequently  happened  that  these  set- 
tlers who  had  pushed  out  from  more  developed 
regions  had  placed  almost  their  whole  capital  in 
their  little  clearing.  Without  preemption,  one  of 
three  things  generally  happened — the  squatter,  un- 
able to  pay  anything  at  all  for  his  land,  would 
sell  his  improvements  to  the  purchaser  of  the  tract 
and  would  then  move  further  out  into  the  wilder- 
ness, or  he  would  bid  the  minimum  price  for  his 
land  and  public  sentiment  would  protect  him  from 
competition,  or  his  land  would  be  purchased  by 


388  THE    NATIONAL   LAND    SYSTEM 

someone  who  would  refuse  to  pay  for  his  improve- 
ments and  yet  who  would  be  strong  enough  to  pro- 
cure his  eviction.  The  theory  of  the  land  system 
was  best  met  by  the  latter  case.  The  land  should 
be  sold  to  the  highest  bidder — and  there  should  be 
no  sentiment  about  it. 

It  was  not  a  pleasant  role  for  Congressmen  to 
denounce  the  squatters.  They  were  law-breakers, 
to  be  sure,  and  yet  in  many  cases  they  were  very 
estimable  criminals.  And  when  the  land  revenue 
was  no  longer  needed  to  help  support  the  govern- 
ment, it  became  easy,  even  for  Congressmen  from 
the  East  and  South,  to  favor  more  liberal  treat- 
ment for  the  actual  settler. 

After  1820  the  relation  of  the  land  system  to 
the  westward  movement  became  more  intimate. 
The  reduction  in  price  and  the  abolition  of  credit 
made  it  easier  for  the  actual  settler  to  secure  a 
small  tract  of  land.  One  hundred  dollars  would 
purchase  outright  eighty  acres,  whereas  formerly 
eighty  dollars  would  be  but  a  first  payment  on  a 
quarter-section.  As  the  surveys  were  extended 
further  away  from  the  older  settlements  they  were 
less  hampered  by  the  private  land  claims  and  so 
could  better  serve  the  rapidly  advancing  people. 
And  then,  in  the  'twenties,  began  the  system  of 
land  grants  for  internal  improvements,  which  en- 
couraged roads,  canals,  and  railways,  causing  mil- 
lions of  acres  of  land  to  pass  into  private  owner- 
ship through  the  agency  of  the  State  or  the  cor- 
porations rather  than  through  the  land  offices,  and 


EARLY    LAND    SYSTEM  389 

opening  up  for  settlement  great  regions  away 
from  the  rivers,  for  the  earlier  settlements  had 
clung  closely  to  those  avenues  of  transportation. 
Finally,  in  1821,  the  public  land  States  could  mus- 
ter fourteen  votes  in  the  Senate,  and  if  the  West 
might  differ  within  itself  on  other  policies,  it  stood 
as  a  unit  on  the  great  questions  of  land  adminis- 
tration. Each  new  State  increased  this  political 
strength.  Preemption  came  in  1841,  Benton's 
graduation  act  in  1854,  and  Homesteads  in  1862. 
And  during  these  years  the  railway  land  grants 
were  becoming  more  lavish,  culminating  in  the 
great  grants  to  the  Pacific  railways,  while  the 
bounty  land  legislation  of  the  'fifties  caused  the 
issue  of  warrants  for  millions  of  acres  which  were 
sold  for  less  than  the  existing  minimum  price. 
But  this  story  cannot  be  narrated  here. 

Down  to  1820,  therefore,  the  land  system  paid 
more  attention  to  revenue  than  to  the  settler,  but 
the  emphasis  was  slowly  being  shifted  toward  the 
more  desirable  side.  And,  in  spite  of  errors  both 
of  commission  and  of  omission,  the  system  was,  on 
the  whole,  commendable.  Its  surveys  alone  would 
have  made  it  notable.  They  rendered  the  settle- 
ment orderly  and  afforded  sound  titles  for  all  time. 
And,  finally,  it  was1  a  national  land  system.  It  is 
not  difficult  to  imagine  what  would  have  happened 
if  the  old  claimant  States  had  held  control  of  their 
Western  lands,  or  if  the  new  States  had  been 
entrusted  with  them  on  admission  to  the  Union. 
The  national  land  system  was  subject  to  no  little 


890  THE    NATIONAL    LAND   SYSTEM 

criticism,  yet  what  would  have  been  the  case  under 
a  dozen  or  more  systems?  And  as  to  the  west- 
ward movement — the  old  land  system  encouraged 
it  in  many  ways.  The  average  settler  welcomed 
the  accurate  surveys,  the  relatively  cheap  lands, 
and  the  credit  system;  the  speculator  saw  in  the 
extended  credit  an  opportunity  to  make  a  fortune, 
and  his  class  undoubtedly  directed  many  real  set- 
tlers toward  the  West;  and  the  restless  pioneer, 
whose  only  capital  was  an  ax  and  a  gun,  was  not 
troubled  by  the  system.  He  moved  in  advance  of 
the  surveyors  and  settled  for  a  while  as  a  squatter. 
And  when  his  land  was  placed  on  the  market,  he 
could  generally  choose  between  buying  his  land 
and  becoming  a  settler  or  moving  on  again  in 
advance  of  the  civilization  he  could  not  endure. 


THE   END 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Journals  of  the  American  Congress,  from  1774  to  1788.  4  vols. 
Washington,  1823.  (Cited  as  "J."  Used  for  acts  after  1779.) 

Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress,  1774-1789.  *  vols.  Washing- 
ton, 1904.*  (Used  for  acts  before  1780.) 

American  State  Papers.  Public  Lands,  8  vols.;  Finance,  3  vols.; 
Miscellaneous,  2  vols.  Wjashington,  1832-1861.  (Cited  as  "P. 
L.",  "Fin.",  "Misc.") 

Annals  of  Congress,  1789-1823.    (Cited  as  "  Annals.") 

Congressional  Debates,  1823-1837.     (Cited  as  "Debates.") 

Congressional  Globe,  1833-1873.    (Cited  as  "Globe.") 

Statutes  at  Large,  1789-1873.     17  vols.     Boston. 

Statutes  at  Large,  1873-1909. 

Various  Congressional  documents  cited  in  full. 

Land  Laws  of  the  United  States.  Vol.  I.,  and  II.,  Local  or  Tempor- 
ary; vol.  III.,  Existing  Laws.  Washington,  1884. 

Adams,   H.    B.     Maryland's   Influence  upon  Land  Cessions  to  the 

United   States,  etc.     Johns   Hopkins   University  Studies,   Third 

Series,  No.  1,  1885. 
Alden,   G.  H.     New  Governments  West  of  the  AUeghanies  before 

1780.     Bulletin  of  the  Univ.  of  Wisconsin,  vol.  2,  No.  1,  1897. 
Alvord,  C.  A.     The  Genesis  of  the  Proclamation  of  1763.     Michigan 

Pioneer  and  Historical  Society  Collections,  vol.  39,  1908. 
Ballagh,  J.   C.     Introduction   to   Southern   Economic    History,   The 

Land  System.     American  Historical  Association  Reports,  1897. 
Bancroft,  George.     History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Constitution  of 

the  United  States  of  America.    2  vols.    New  York,  1882.    (Cited 

as  "Ban.") 
Barrett,  J.  A.     Evolution  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  etc.     University 

of  Nebraska  Seminary  Papers,  1891. 
Benton,  T.  H.     Thirty  Years'  View:  or  a  History  of  the  Working 

of  the  American  Government  for  Thirty  Years.     2  vols.   New 

York,  1854-6. 

Boggess,  A.  C.    The  Settlement  of  Illinois,  1778-1830.    Chicago,  1908. 
Broadhead,   G.   C.     The   New   Madrid   Earthquake.      The   American 

Geologist,  vdl.  30.     Minneapolis,  1902. 
Butler,  Nathan.     Boundaries  and  Public  Land  Surveys  of  Minnesota. 

Collection  of  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society,  vol.  XII.,  1908. 

391 


392  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

Carr,  Lucien.  Missouri,  A  Bone  of  Contention.  (American  Common- 
wealths.) Boston,  1888. 

Chaddock,  R.  E.  Ohio  before  1850.  Columbia  University  Studies, 
1908,  No.  9. 

Cutler,  W.  P.  and  J.  P.  Life,  Journals  and  Correspondence  of  Rev. 
Manasseh  Cutler,  LL.D.  2  vols.  Cincinnati,  1888.  (Cited  as 
"  Cutler.") 

Dillon,  J.  B.  Oddities  of  Colonial  Legislation  in  America.  Indian- 
apolis, 1879. 

Donaldson,  Thomas.  The  Public  Domain.  Its  History,  with  Sta- 
tistics. Washington,  1884. 

Education,    Bureau    of.      Circulars    of    Information.      Washington, 

1890-1893. 
Blackmar,  Frank  W.     The  History  of  Federal  and  State  Aid  to 

Higher  Education  in  the  United  States.     No.  1,  1890. 
Knight,  G.  W.  and  Commons,  J.  R.     The  History  of  Higher  Edu- 
cation in  Ohio.     No.  5,  1891. 

Woodburn,  J.  A.    Higher  Education  in  Indiana.  No.  1,  1891. 
Merriam,  L.  S.     Higher  Education  in  Tennessee.     No.  3,  1893. 

Emerick,  C.  F.  The  Credit  System  and  the  Public  Domain.  Vander- 
bilt  Southern  History  Society  Publication,  No.  3.  Nashville, 
1899. 

Flint,  James.  Letters  from  America,  etc.  (Edinburgh,  1822). 
Early  Western  Travels,  vol.  9.  Cleveland,  1904. 

Gallatin,  Albert.  The  Writings  of.  Edited  by  Henry  Adams.  3 
vols.  Fhila.,  1879. 

Gayarre,  Charles.  History  of  Louisiana,  the  Spanish  Domination. 
New  York,  1867,  2d  edition. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  The  Works  of.  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  editor. 
12  vols.  New  York,  1904. 

Hamilton,  John  C.  Life  of  Alexander  Hamilton.  7  vols.  Boston, 
1879. 

Hart,  A.  B.  Practical  Essays  on  American  Government.  The  Pub- 
lic Land  Policy  of  the  United  States,  ch.  10.  New  York,  1894. 

Haskins,  C.  H.  The  Yazoo  Land  Companies.  Publications  of  the 
American  Historical  Assn.,  vol.  5,  1891. 

Hazard,  Samuel.  The  Register  of  Pennsylvania.  Philadelphia,  vols. 
1-16,  1828-1835. 

Hening,  W.  W.  Statutes  at  Large,  Virginia.  Richmond,  etc.,  1819- 
1823.  13  vols. 

Higgins,  J.  S.     Subdivisions  of  the  Public  Lands.     St.  Louis,  1894. 

Hinsdale,  B.  A.     The  Old  Northwest.     Boston,  1899. 

Hollister,  G.  H.    History  of  Connecticut.    2  vols.    New  Haven,  1855. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  393 

Howe,  Henry.     Historical  Collections  of  Ohio,  etc.     Cincinnati,  1847. 

Hutchins,  Thomas.  A  Topographical  Description  of  Virginia,  Penn- 
sylvania, Maryland  and  North  Carolina.  Reprinted  from  edi- 
tion of  1778.  F.  C.  Hicks,  editor.  Cleveland,  1904. 

Illinois  State  Historical  Society,  Transactions  of. 

1903.  Ferd.  Ernst.    Travels  in  Illinois  in  1819;  The  Army  led  by 
Col.  George  Rogers  Clark  in  his  Conquest  of  the  Illinois,  1778-9. 

1904.  Stevens,  F.  E.     Illinois  in  the  War  of  1812-14. 

Illinois  State  Historical  Library,  Collection  of.     Vol.  2.     Alvord,  C. 

W.,  editor.     Cahokia  Records,  1778-1790. 
Jefferson,  Thomas.     The  Writings  of.  P.  L.  Ford,  editor.     10  vols. 

New  York,  1892-1899. 
King,  Rufus.    The  Life  and  Correspondence  of.    C.  R.  King,  editor. 

6  vols.     New  York,  1894-1900. 

Knight,  G.  W,  History  and  Management  of  Land  Grants  for  Edu- 
cation in  the  Northwest  Territory.  Papers  of  the  American 

Historical  Association,  vol.  1,  1885. 
Lalor,  J.  J.     Cyclopaedia  of  Political  Science,  Political  Economy, 

and  of  the  Political  History  of  the  United  States.    3  vols.   New 

York,  1888;  vol.  3,  460-479;  Ford,  Worthington.     Public  Lands 

of  the  United  States. 
Lyell,  Sir  Charles.     A  Second  Visit  to  the  United  States  of  North 

America.    2  vols.     New  York,  1849. 

McLaughlin,  A.  C.  The  Influence  of  Governor  Cass  on  the  Devel- 
opment of  the  Northwest.  Papers  of  the  American  Historical 

Association,  vol.  3,  1889. 
McMaster,  J.  B.     A  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States, 

etc.    7  vols.  New  York,  1907. 
Madison,  James.     The  Writings  of.     Gaillard  Hunt,  editor.     *  vols. 

New  York,  1900. 

Mathews,  L.  K.    The  Expansion  of  New  England.     Boston,  1909. 
Mead,  N.  P.     Connecticut  as  a  Corporate  Colony.     New  York,  1906. 
Miner,  Wm.  P.     History  of  Wyoming.     Philadelphia,  1845. 
Monroe,  James.     The  Writings  of.     S.  M.  Hamilton,  editor.    New 

York,  1898. 
North  Carolina,  The  State  Records  of.    Walter  Clark,  editor.     26 

vols.  1886-1905. 
Ohio  Archaelogical  and  Historical  Society  Quarterly,  vol.  3,  1891 ; 

The  Centennial  Anniversary  of  the  City  of  Gallipolis. 
Owen,  T.  M.    Annals  of  Alabama.     Birmingham,  1900. 
Pennsylvania  Archives.    3d  series,  vol.  III.  Harrisburg,  1894. 
Phillips,   U.  B.     Georgia  and  States  Rights.     American  Historical 

Association  Reports,  1901,  vol.  2. 


394  THE    NATIONAL    LAND    SYSTEM 

Pickering,  Octavius.  The  Life  of  Timothy  Pickering.  2  vols.  Bos- 
ton, 1867. 

Pickett,  A.  J.     History  of  Alabama.     Birmingham,  1900. 

Pooley,  W.  V.  The  Settlement  of  Illinois  from  1830  to  1850;  Univ. 
of  Wisconsin  Bulletin,  History  Series.  Vol.  I,  No.  4,  1908. 

Ramsay,  David.  The  History  of  South  Carolina.  2  vols.  Charles- 
ton, 1809. 

Ramsey,  J.  G.  M.     The  Annals  of  Tennessee,  etc.    Charleston,  1853. 

Reeves,  J.  S.  The  Napoleonic  Exiles  in  America.  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  Series  XXII.,  Nos.  9,  10.  Baltimore,  1906. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore.    The  Winning  of  the  West.    4  vols.    New  York. 

Royce,  C.  C.  The  Cherokee  Nation  of  Indians.  Fifth  Annual  Re- 
port, Bureau  of  Ethnology,  Washington,  1887;  Indian  Land 
Cessions  in  the  United  States.  Eighteenth  Annual  Report,  part 
2,  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  Washington,  1899. 

St.  Clair,  Arthur.  The  Life  and  Public  Services  of.  W.  H.  Smith, 
editor.  2  vols.  Cincinnati,  1882. 

Sato,  Shosuke.  History  of  the  Land  Question  in  the  United  States. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies.  Series  IV.,  Nos.  7,  8,  9. 
Baltimore,  1886. 

Shafer,  Joseph.  The  Origin  of  the  System  of  Land  Grants  for 
Education.  University  of  Wisconsin  Bulletin,  No.  63,  1902. 

Shaler,  N.  S.  Kentucky,  A  Pioneer  Commonwealth.  (American 
Commonwealth  Series.)  Boston,  1888. 

Thompson,  Charles,  The  Papers  of.  Collections  of  the  New  York 
Historical  Society,  1878.  Publication  Fund  Series.  New  York,  1879. 

Turner,  F.  J.  The  Old  West,  in  Proceedings  of  the  State  Historical 
Society  of  Wisconsin,  1908;  Rise  of  the  New  West,  1819-1829; 
New  York,  1906;  Western  State  Making  in  the  Revolutionary 
Era.  American  Historical  Review,  vol.  I. 

Washington,  George.  The  Writings  of.  W.  C.  Ford,  editor.  14  vols. 
New  York,  1889-1893. 

Webster,  Pelatiah.  Political  Essays  on  the  Nature  and  Operation 
of  Money,  Public  Finances,  and  other  Subjects,  etc.  Phila- 
delphia, 1791. 

Welling,  J.  C.  The  Land  Politics  of  the  United  States.  Papers  of 
the  New  York  Historical  Society,  1888;  The  States  Rights  Con- 
flict over  the  Public  Lands.  Papers  of  the  American  Historical 
Association,  vol.  3,  1889. 

Winsor,  Justin,  editor.  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America. 
8  vols.  Boston,  1888. 

Woodard,  C.  S.  The  Public  Domain,  its  Surveys  and  Surveyors. 
Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Society  Collection,  vol.  27,  1897. 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX    I 

LANDS  CEDED   BY  THE  STATES  TO  THE 

UNITED  STATES. 
Northwest  of  the  Ohio   River.  ,  Square  miles 

Ohio    '. 39,964 

Indiana    33,809 

Illinois    55,414 

Michigan    56,451 

Wisconsin    53,924 

Minnesota,  east  of  the  Mississippi  River 26,000 

acres 

265,562  or  169,959,680 
Virginia  claimed  this  entire  region. 
New  York  claimed  an  indefinite  amount. 
Connecticut  claimed   about  35,600,000  acres    and  ceded  all  but 

3,300,000. 

Massachusetts  claimed  about  34,560,000  acres. 
South  of  Kentucky. 

South  Carolina  ceded  about  3,136,000  acres. 
North  Carolina  ceded  (nominally)  29,184,000  acres. 
Georgia  ceded  56,689,920  acres. 


APPENDIX    II. 

AN  ORDINANCE  FOR  ASCERTAINING  THE  MODE  OF  DIS- 
POSING OF  LANDS  IN  THE  WESTERN  TERRITORY. 

J.  IV.,  520-2. 

Passed  May  20,  1785. 

"  Be  it  ordained  by  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  that 
the  territory  ceded  by  individual  states  to  the  United  States,  which 
has  been  purchased  of  the  Indian  inhabitants,  shall  be  disposed  of 
in  the  following  manner: 

395 


396  THE  NATIONAL  LAND  SYSTEM 

"  A  sutyeyor  from  each  state  shall  be  appointed  by  Congress  or  a 
commitee  of  the  states,  who  shall  take  an  oath  for  the  faithful  dis- 
charge of  his  duty,  before  the  geographer  of  the  United  States,  who 
is  hereby  empowered  and  directed  to  administer  the  same;  and  the 
like  oath  shall  be  administered  to  each  chain  carrier,  by  the  sur- 
veyor under  whom  he  acts. 

"  The  geographer,  under  whose  direction  the  surveyors  shall  act, 
shall  occasionally  form  such  regulations  for  their  conduct,  as  he 
shall  deem  necessary;  and  shall  have  authority  to  suspend  them  for 
misconduct  in  office,  and  shall  make  report  of  the  same  to  Congress, 
or  to  the  committee  of  the  states;  and  he  shall  make  report  in  case 
of  sickness,  death,  or  resignation  of  any  surveyor. 

"The  surveyors,  as  they  are  respectively  qualified,  shall  proceed 
to  divide  the  said  territory  into  townships  of  6  miles  square,  by 
lines  running  due  north  and  south,  and  others  crossing  these  at 
right  angles,  as  near  as  may  be,  unless  where  the  boundaries  of  the 
late  Indian  purchases  may  render  the  same  impracticable,  and  then 
they  shall  depart  from  this  rule  no  farther  than  such  particular  cir- 
cumstance may  require.  And  each  surveyor  shall  be  allowed  and 
paid  at  the  rate  of  two  dollars  for  every  mile,  in  length,  he  shall 
run,  including  the  wages  of  chain  carriers,  markers,  and  every  other 
expense  attending  the  same. 

"The  first  line,  running  due  north  and  south  as  aforesaid,  shall 
begin  on  the  river  Ohio,  at  a  point  that  shall  be  found  to  be  due 
north  from  the  western  termination  of  a  line,  which  has  been  run 
as  the  southern  boundary  of  the  state  of  Pennsylvania;  and  the 
first  line,  running  east  and  west,  shall  begin  at  the  same  point,  and 
shall  extend  throughout  the  whole  territory;  provided,  that  nothing 
herein  shall  be  construed,  as  fixing  the  western  boundary  of  the 
state  of  Pennsylvania.  The  geographer  shall  designate  the  town- 
ships, or  fractional  parts  of  townships,  by  numbers  progressively 
from  south  to  north ;  always  beginning  each  range  with  No.  1 ;  and 
the  ranges  shall  be  distinguished  by  their  progressive  numbers  to 
the  westward.  The  first  range,  extending  from  the  Ohio  to  the  lake 
Erie,  being  marked  No.  1.  The  geographer  shall  personally  attend 
to  the  running  of  the  first  east  and  west  line;  and  shall  take  the 
latitude  of  the  extremes  of  the  first  north  and  south  line,  and  of  the 
mouths  of  the  principal  rivers. 

"  The  lines  shall  be  measured  with  a  chain ;  shall  be  plainly  marked 
by  chaps  on  the  trees,  and  exactly  described  on  a  plat;  whereon 
shall  be  noted  by  the  surveyor,  as  their  proper  distances,  all  mines, 
salt-springs,  salt-licks,  and  mill-seats,  that  shall  come  to  his  knowl- 
edge; and  all  water-courses,  mountains  and  other  remarkable  and 


APPENDIX  397 

permanent  things,  over  and  near  which  such  lines  shall  pass,  and 
also  the  quality  of  the  lands. 

"  The  plats  of  the  townships  respectively,  shall  be  marked  by  sub- 
divisions into  lots  of  one  mile  square,  or  640  acres,  in  the  same 
direction  as  the  external  lines,  and  numbered  from  1  to  36;  always 
beginning  the  succeeding  range  of  the  lots  with  the  number  next 
to  that  with  which  the  preceding  one  concluded.  And  where,  from 
the  causes  before-mentioned,  only  a  fractional  part  of  a  township 
shall  be  surveyed,  the  lots,  protracted  thereon,  shall  bear  the  same 
numbers  as  if  the  township  had  been  entire.  And  the  surveyors, 
in  running  the  external  lines  of  the  townships,  shall,  at  the  interval 
of  every  mile,  mark  corners  for  the  lots  which  are  adjacent,  always 
designating  the  same  in  a  different  manner  from  those  of  the  town- 
ships. 

"  The  geographer  and  surveyors  shall  pay  the  utmost  attention  to 
the  variation  of  the  magnetic  needle;  and  shall  run  and  note  all 
lines  by  the  true  meridian,  certifying,  with  every  plat,  what  was  the 
variation  at  the  times  of  running  the  lines  thereon  noted. 

"  As  soon  as  7  ranges  of  townships,  and  fractional  parts  of  town- 
ships, in  the  direction  from  south  to  north,  shall  have  been  sur- 
veyed, the  geographer  shall  transmit  plats  thereof  to  the  board  of 
treasury,  who  shall  record  the  same,  with  the  report,  in  well  bound 
books  to  be  kept  for  that  purpose.  And  the  geographer  shall  make 
similar  returns,  from  time  to  time,  of  every  7  ranges  as  they  may 
be  surveyed.  The  secretary  at  war  shall  have  recourse  thereto,  and 
shall  take  by  lot  therefrom,  a  number  of  townships,  and  fractional 
parts  of  townships,  as  well  from  those  to  be  sold  entire,  as  from 
those  to  be  sold  in  lots,  as  will  be  equal  to  one-seventh  part  of  the 
whole  of  such  7  ranges,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  for  the  use  of  the 
late  continental  army;  and  he  shall  make  a  similar  draught,  from 
time  to  time,  until  a  sufficient  quantity  is  drawn  to  satisfy  the  same, 
to  be  applied  in  manner  hereinafter  directed.  The  board  of  treasury 
shall,  from  time  to  time,  cause  the  remaining  numbers,  as  well  those 
to  be  sold  entire,  as  those  to  be  sold  in  lots,  to  be  drawn  for,  in 
the  name  of  the  thirteen  states  respectively,  according  to  the  quotas 
in  the  last  preceding  requisition  on  all  the  states;  provided,  that  in 
case  more  land  than  its  proportion  is  allotted  for  sale  in  any  state, 
at  any  distribution,  a  deduction  be  made  therefor  at  the  next. 

"  The  board  of  treasury  shall  transmit  a  copy  of  the  original  plats, 
previously  noting  thereon,  the  townships,  and  fractional  parts  of 
townships,  which  shall  have  fallen  to  the  several  states,  by  the  dis- 
tribution aforesaid,  to  the  commissioners  of  the  loan-office  of  the 
several  states,  who,  after  giving  notice  of  not  less  than  two  nor 


398  THE  NATIONAL  LAND  SYSTEM 

more  than  six  months,  by  causing  advertisements  to  be  posted  up 
at  the  court-houses,  or  other  noted  places  in  every  county,  and  to  be 
inserted  in  one  newspaper,  published  in  the  states  of  their  residence 
respectively,  shall  proceed  to  sell  the  townships,  or  fractional  parts 
of  townships,  at  public  vendue;  in  the  following  manner,  viz:  The 
township,  or  fractional  part  of  a  township,  No.  1,  in  the  first  range, 
shall  be  sold  entire;  and  No.  2,  in  the  same  range,  by  lots;  and 
thus  in  alternate  order  through  the  whole  of  the  first  range.  The 
townships,  or  fractional  part  of  a  township,  No.  1,  in  the  second 
range,  shall  be  sold  by  lots;  and  No.  3,  in  the  same  range,  entire; 
and  so  in  alternate  order  through  the  whole  of  the  second  range; 
and  the  third  range  shall  be  sold  in  the  same  manner  as  the  first, 
and  the  fourth  in  the  same  manner  as  the  second,  and  thus  alter- 
nately throughout  all  the  ranges;  provided,  that  none  of  the  lands, 
within  the  said  territory,  be  sold  under  the  price  of  one  dollar  the 
acre,  to  be  paid  in  specie,  or  loan-office  certificates,  reduced  to  specie 
value,  by  the  scale  of  depreciation,  or  certificates  of  liquidated  debts 
of  the  United  States,  including  interest,  besides  the  expense  of  the 
survey  and  other  charges  thereon,  which  are  hereby  rated  at  36  dol- 
lars the  township,  in  specie,  or  certificates  as  aforesaid,  and  so  in 
the  same  proportion  for  a  fractional  part  of  a  township,  or  of  a 
lot,  to  be  paid  at  the  time  of  sales;  on  failure  of  which  payment, 
the  said  lands  shall  again  be  offered  for  sale. 

"  There  shall  be  reserved  for  the  United  States  out  of  every  town- 
ship the  four  lots,  being  numbered  8,  11,  26,  29,  and  out  of  every 
fractional  part  of  a  township,  so  many  lots  of  the  same  numbers 
as  shall  be  found  thereon,  for  future  sale.  There  shall  be  reserved 
the  lot  No.  16,  of  every  township,  for  the  maintenance  of  public 
schools,  within  the  said  township;  also  one-third  part  of  all  gold, 
silver,  lead  and  copper  mines,  to  be  sold,  or  otherwise  disposed  of 
as  Congress  shall  hereafter  direct. 

(Here  follow  the  terms  of  the  deed  to  be  given  when  a  township 
or  a  lot  is  sold.) 

"Which  deeds  shall  be  recorded  in  proper  books,  by  the  commis- 
sioner of  the  loan  office,  and  shall  be  certified  to  have  been  recorded, 
previously  to  their  being  delivered  to  the  purchaser,  and  shall  be 
good  and  valid  to  convey  the  lands  in  the  same  described. 

"  The  commissioners  of  the  loan-offices  respectively,  shall  trans- 
mit to  the  board  of  treasury  every  three  months,  an  account  of  the 
townships,  fractional  parts  of  townships,  and  lots  committed  to  their 
charge;  specifying  therein  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom  sold, 
and  the  sums  of  money  or  certificates  received  for  the  same;  and 
shall  cause  all  certificates  by  them  received,  to  be  struck  through 


APPENDIX  399 

with  a  circular  punch;  and  shall  be  duly  charged  in  the  books  of 
the  treasury,  with  the  amount  of  the  money  or  certificates,  distin- 
guishing the  same,  by  them  received  as  aforesaid. 

"  If  any  township,  or  fractional  part  of  a  township  or  lot,  re- 
mains uusold  for  18  months  after  the  plat  shall  have  been  received, 
by  the  commissioners  of  the  loan-office,  the  same  shall  be  returned 
to  the  board  of  treasury,  and  shall  be  sold  in  such  manner  as  Con- 
gress may  hereafter  direct. 

"  And  whereas  Congress,  by  their  resolutions  of  September  16th 
and  18th,  in  the  year  1776,  and  the  12th  of  August,  1780,  stipulated 
grants  of  land  to  certain  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  late  continental 
army,  and  by  the  resolution  of  the  22nd  September,  1780,  stipulated 
grants  of  land  to  certain  officers  in  the  hospital  department  of  the 
late  continental  army;  for  complying  therefore  with  such  engage- 
ments, Be  it  ordained,  That  the  secretary  at  war,  from  the  returns 
in  his  office,  or  such  other  sufficient  evidence1  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  may  admit,  determine  who  are  objects  of  the  above  resolutions 
and  engagements,  and  the  quantity  of  land  to  which  such  persons  or 
their  representatives  are  respectively  entitled,  and  cause  the  town- 
ships, or  fractional  parts  of  townships,  hereinbefore  reserved  for 
the  use  of  the  late  continental  army,  to  be  drawn  for  in  such  manner 
as  he  shall  deem  expedient,  to  answer  the  purpose  of  an  impartial 
distribution.  He  shall,  from  time  to  time,  transmit  certificates  to 
the  commissioners  of  the  loan-offices  of  the  different  states,  to  the 
lines  of  which  the  military  claimants  have  respectively  belonged, 
specifying  the  name  and  rank  of  fhe  party,  the  terms  of  his  en- 
gagement and  time  of  his  service,  and  the  division,  brigade,  regiment 
or  company  to  which  he  belonged,  the  quantity  of  land  he  is  entitled 
to,  and  the  township,  or  fractional  part  of  a  township,  and  range 
out  of  which  his  portion  is  to  be  taken. 

"  The  commissioners  of  the  loan-offices  shall  execute  deeds  for  such 
undivided  proportions  in  manner  and  form  herein  before-mentioned, 
varying  only  in  such  a  degree  as  to  make  the  same  conformable  to 
the  certificate  from  the  secretary  at  war. 

"  Where  any  military  claimants  of  bounty  in  lands  shall  not  have 
belonged  to  the  line  of  any  particular  state,  similar  certificates  shall 
be  sent  to  the  board  of  treasury,  who  shall  execute  deeds  to  the 
parties  for  the  same. 

"  The  secretary  at  war,  from  the  proper  returns,  shall  transmit  to 
the  board  of  treasury,  a  certificate,  specifying  the  name  and  rank 
of  the  several  claimants  of  the  hospital  department  of  the  late  con- 
tinental army,  together  with  the  quantity  of  land  each  claimant  is 
entitled  to,  and  the  township,  or  fractional  part  of  a  township,  and 


100  THE  NATIONAL  LAND  SYSTEM 

range  out  of  which  his  portion  is  to  be  taken;  and  thereupon  the 
board  of  treasury  shall  proceed  to  execute  deeds  to  such  claimants. 

"  The  board  of  treasury,  and  the  commissioners  of  the  loan-offices 
in  the  states,  shall,  within  18  months,  return  receipts  to  the  secre- 
tary at  war,  for  all  deeds  which  have  been  delivered,  as  also  all 
the  original  deeds  which  remain  in  their  hands  for  want  of  appli- 
cants, having  been  first  recorded;  which  deeds  so  returned,  shall  be 
preserved  in  the  office,  until  the  parties  or  their  representatives  re- 
quire the  same. 

"And  be  it  further  ordained,  That  three  townships  adjacent  to 
lake  Erie  be  reserved,  to  be  hereafter  disposed  of  in  Congress,  for 
the  use  of  the  officers,  men,  and  others,  refugees  from  Canada,  and 
the  refugees  from  Nova  Scotia,  who  are  or  may  be  entitled  to  grants 
of  land  under  resolutions  of  Congress  now  existing  or  which  may 
hereafter  be  made  respecting  them,  and  for  such  other  purposes  as 
Congress  may  hereafter  direct. 

"  And  be  it  further  ordained,  That  the  towns  of  Gnadenhutten, 
Schoenbrun  and  Salem,  on  the  Muskingum,  and  so  much  of  the 
lands  adjoining  to  the  said  towns,  with  the  buildings  and  improve- 
ments thereon,  shall  be  reserved  for  the  sole  use  of  the  Christian 
Indians,  who  were  formerly  settled  there,  or  the  remains  of  that 
society,  as  may,  in  the  judgment  of  the, geographer,  be  sufficient  for 
them  to  cultivate. 

"  Saving  and  reserving  always,  to  all  officers  and  soldiers  entitled 
to  lands  on  the  northwest  side  of  the  Ohio,  by  donation  or  bounty 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia,  and  to  all  persons  claiming 
under  them,  all  rights  to  which  they  are  so  entitled,  under  the  deed 
of  cession  executed  by  the  delegates  for  the  state  of  Virginia  on  the 
first  day  of  March,  1784,  and  the  act  of  Congress  accepting  the 
same:  and  to  the  end,  that  the  said  rights  may  be  fully  and  effec- 
tually secured,  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  said 
deed  of  cession  and  act  aforesaid,  Be  it  ordained,  that  no  part  of 
the  land  included  between  the  rivers  called  Little  Miami  and  Scioto, 
on  the  northwest  side  of  the  river  Ohio,  be  sold,  or  in  any  manner 
alienated,  until  there  shall  first  have  been  laid  off  and  appropriated 
for  the  said  officers  and  soldiers,  and  persons  claiming  under  them, 
the  lands  they  are  entitled  to,  agreeably  to  the  said  deed  of  cession 
and  act  of  Congress  accepting  the  same. 

"  Done  by  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  the  20th  day 
of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1785,  and  of  our  sovereignty  and 
independence  the  ninth. 

"  H  u  1 1  sun   H.  LEE,  President, 
"  Cn  AKLES  THOMPSOK,  Secretary." 


APPENDIX 


401 


APPENDIX   III. 

EXTENSION  OF  THE  LAND  SYSTEM. 

ESTIMATE  OF  THE  QUANTITY  OF  LAND  IN  EACH  LAND 

DISTRICT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES;  THE  QUANTITY 

SURVEYED;    THE    AMOUNT    OF    RESERVATIONS 

AND    PRIVATE    CLAIMS;    THE     AMOUNT    OF 

SALES;    AND    THE    AMOUNT    UNSOLD    TO 

OCTOBER    1ST,    1821.      P.    L.    III.,    533. 

Reservations. 

Total  Private     Amount 

Acres.    Surveyed.       Claims.        Sold.  '        Unsold. 
OHIO 


243,533 
279,371 


Marietta 576,000  Whole 

Ohio  Co 1,344,160  Whole 

Zanesville 2,367,360      Whole 

Steubenville. . .     1,935,360  Whole 

Chillicothe 3,109,760       Whole 

Cincinnati 3,709,440  Whole 

Wooster 1,244,160  Whole 

Piqua 2,983,800  Whole 

Delaware 2,321,280  1,971,840 

IND. 

Vincennes 5,450,400  Whole 

Jeff ersonville . .    2,856,960  Whole 

Brookville 3,768,960  1,751,040 

Terre  Haute..   3,600,000  1,290,240 

ILL. 
Shawneetown. .     3,018,240       Whole 

Kaskaskia 2,188,800  Whole 

Edwardsville..     (Indef.)  3,271,680 

Palestine (Indef.)  2,693,760 

Vandalia (Indef.)  2,626,560 

MICH. 

Detroit 10,399,360  2,396,160 

Mo. 

St.   Louis 8,893,440  4,331,520 

Franklin 15,298,560  5,091,840 

Cape  Girar- 
deau 15,032,080    4,124,160 

ARK. 

Lawrence  Co.     17,395,200  2,488,320     1,506,880 

Arkansas..        13,547,520  2,741,760     1,026,560 


16,000        179,511 


473,289 


697,760   913,915 
53,760  1,571,691 


755,685 
309,909 


945,172  1,032,102   1,122,486 
103,640  2,755,059    850,741 
34,560   908,579 


301,021 
6,125   2,734,142 
75,724   1,966,185 


151,400  1,436,497  3,852,503 

79,360  1,287,732  1,489,868 

104,693   256,754  3,407,513 

100,000    30,977  3,469,023 

83,840   592,464  2,401,936 

152,960   419,898  1,615,942 

136,960   437,993  2,696,727* 

714  2,880,720* 

7,923  2,545,677» 


82,326 
72,960 


378,250 


71,975   9,949,135 


316,160   546,254   8,031,026 
983,400   759,946  13,544,215 

463,360    28,534  14,530,186 


None    

2,411     12,518,549 


402 


THE  NATIONAL  LAND  SYSTEM 


LA. 
No.    Dist  

Total 
Acres. 

9,484,640 
10,613,120 

Reservations. 
Private     Amount 
Surveyed.      Claims.        Sold. 

567,000    1,507,469          None 
1,405,440        754,888          None 

Unsold. 

S.  W.  Dist.. 

St.  Helena 
Dist  

3,136,000 

3,502,080 
2,097,600 

,  6,904,320 
8,037,120 
8,812,800 
6,451,200 
2,880,000 

Miss. 
W.   of    Pearl 
River  

Whole 
No  surveys 

5,253,120 
5,276,160 
4,308,480 
1,221,120 
92,160 

604,160 

1,182,673 

1,715,247 

Jackson,  Ct. 
House  

ALA. 
E.  of  Pearl  R, 
Huntsville  
Cahawba  

254386 
223,253 
244,800 
179,200 
80,000 

944,000 
1,510,918 
1,576,865 
64,294 
None 

5,705,934 
6,338,949 
6,991,135 
6,207,706 

Tuscaloosa  
Conecuh  

The  reservations  include  private  claims,  school  lands,  Indian  res- 
ervations, etc.    *  Boundaries  not  defined. 

APPENDIX    IV. 

DISTANCES  BETWEEN  LAND  OFFICES,  AGREEABLE  TO 

MELISH'S  MAP   OF  THE   UNITED   STATES. 

P.  L.  Ill,  534. 

MILKS 

From  Zanesville  to   Chillicothe 66 

"       Zanesville   to    Marietta    48 

"      Zanesville  to  Steubenville   67 

"      Zanesville  to  Wooster    56 

"      Zanesville  to  Delaware    65 

"      Chillicothe  to  Marietta    82 

"      Marietta  to  Steubenville   73 

"      Steubenville  to  Wooster   67 

"      Wooster   to  Delaware    70 

"      Delaware   to   Detroit    148 

"      Delaware  to   Piqua 53 

"      Piqua   to   Chillicothe 85 

"      Chillicothe   to    Cincinnati    80 

"      Cincinnati  to  Piqua    70 


APPENDIX  403 

i  MILES 

From  Cincinnati    to   Brookville    27 

"      Cincinnati   to   Jeffersonville 73 

"      Jeffersonville    to    Vincennes    100 

"      Vincennes  to  Palestine   23 

"      Palestine  to  Terre   Hadte    32 

"      Terre  Haute  to   Vandalia    85 

"       Vandalia    to    Shawneetown    95 

Shawneetown   to    Vincennes 65 

"       Vincennes    to    Vandalia    74 

"       Vandalia    to   Edwardsville 38 

"      Edwardsville  to  St.  Louis    26 

"      St.    Louis    to    Kaskaskia 50 

"       St.  Louis  to  Franklin    144 

"       Kaskaskia    to    Cape    Girardeau  1 54 

"      Cape  Girardeau  to  Napoleon  2    164 

"       Napoleon    to    Little    Rock  s    95 

"       Little  Rock  to  Arkansas   (Post)*    80 

"      Arkansas    (Post)    to  Monroe    105 

"       Monroe »   to   Washington    86 

"       Washington «  to  Opelousas 83 

"      Washington   to   St.   Helena    62 

"      St.  Helena  to  Opelousas  ?    78 

"       St.   Helena   to   New   Orleans    50 

"      New  Orleans  to  St.  Stephens «    157 

"      St.    Stephens    to    Cahawba    60 

"      Cahawba  to  Tuscaloosa   73 

"  Tuscaloosa    to    Huntsville    .                                                   .   100 


1  Jackson,  Cape  Girardeau  County. 

2  Land  office  was  at  Polk  Bayou  in  1821. 

s  Little  Rock  was  the  seat  of  the  "  Arkansas  "  Land  Office. 

*  There  was  no  land  office  at  Arkansas  Post. 

o  Monroe,  i.  e.  Northern  District  of  Louisiana. 

«  Washington,  i.  e.  West  of  Pearl  River,  Mississippi. 

t  Opelousas,  i.  e.  Southwestern  District  of  Louisiana. 

s  St.  Stephens,  i.  e.  East  of  Pearl  River. 


404 


THE  NATIONAL  LAND  SYSTEM 


APPENDIX   V. 

ESTIMATED   AREA   OF   INDIAN   LAND   CESSIONS'. 
1820.     P.   L.    III.,   461. 


1795,  Greene ville 


ACRES 

-Wyandots,    etc...   11,808,499 


Exclusive    of    Va. 
mil.  lands. 


1805,  Ft.  Industry  —  Wyandots,  etc... 

1,030,400 

1807,  Detroit  —  Wyandots,  etc.    

7,862,400 

1803,  Ft.    Wayne—  Delawares,    etc... 

2,038,400 

1803,  Vincennes  —  Kaskaskias    

8.911,850 

1804,  Vincennes  —  Delawares  and  Pi- 

ankeshaws    

1,921,280 

1805,  Grouseland  —  Delawares,    etc.  .  . 

1,572,480 

1805,  Vincennes  —  Piankeshaws      

2,076,160 

1809,  Ft.    Wayne—  Delawares,    etc... 

3,257,600 

1809,  Vincennes  —  Kickapoos     

138,240 

1816,  St.    Louis—  Ottaways,    etc.    .  .  . 

1,274,880 

144,000 

1804,  St.  Louis  —  Sac  and  Fox    

9,803,520 

1806,  Washington  —  Cherokees    

1,209,600 

Balance     in     Ten- 

nessee. 

1816,  Turkeytown  —  Cherokees      

1,395,200 

1805,  Chickasaw  Co.  —  Chickasaws    .  . 

345,600 

Balance    in    Tenn. 

1801,  Ft.    Adams—  Choctaws    

2,641,920 

1802,  Ft.    Confed.—  Choctaws    

853,760 

1805,  Mt  Dexter  —  Choctaws    

4,142,720 

1814,  Ft.    Jackson  —  Creeks    

14,284,800 

Residue  in  Ga. 

1808,  Ft   Clark—  Gt.  and  Little  Os- 

ages    

50,269,440 

1817,  Rapids  —  Wyandots     

4,377,600 

1817,  Rapids  —  Pottawatamies,   etc.    . 

430,080 

1818,  St.    Mary's    —   Pottawatamies, 

etc  

1,109,760 

1818,  St.    Mary's  —  Miamis    

5,867,520 

1818,  Edwardsville  —  Peorias    

6,865,280 

1818,  St.    Louis  —  Quapaws    

30,690,560 

1818,  St.  Louis—  Gt.  and  Little  Os- 

ages    

7,392,000 

1819,  Washington  —  Cherokees    

566,400 

Residue    in    Tenn. 

and  Ga. 

APPENDIX  405 


ACRES 

1819,  Saginaw— Chippewas      4,321,280 

1819,  Ft.     Harrison — Kickapoos     of 

Vermilion    .  3,173,120 


191,776,349 

202,187      Penn.    Triangle. 


191,978,536 


406 


THE  NATIONAL  LAND  SYSTEM 


^<oo>t-c>g5'>i«5>'>i«o>-iS»»iCN 

O}«O    1f4.CkQi.IOflllAA.HC    ••«»•  i-< 

:*       •jQ«*'*o*-^''»»»o~>-T'* 
t»  9«?9SlB**95E»^»*v 


ss 


2 


2  2 


I 

— 


00    <3* 

^  2 


to 


CO    CD    ?^  -^ 

<    KS    «0    &5  O 

^  to^  c^  t-.  t-^ 

f  «d  •"*"  oo1  of 

co  to  co 


00 

I 


1    *3 
*    00 


II 


I 

g 

^ 


o» 


u 

1 


?       > 

2     2 


APPENDIX 


407 


CO    ?• 


o, 

H 

§ 


O5  CO    OQ 

Its  t-    C> 

to  i-  d 

00  TO~  -£ 

fcj  CD    *>• 


<*>*  to. 


*°»  *  t**? 

I-H  t-     OQ 

•>  v  sS 

S  *< 


•*»»      -— 

*v  •* 


*O  Oi  *^  Is* 

«5  g  0>  *l 

(O  *S  I-H  »O 

r-T  »?  i-T  »? 

CO  to  G*  «* 


rH    *S 


5  "i 

1  8 


§ 


,31 

rH    QD    rH 

E    S 
^>*    00 

Brf 

6  ^  ° 
g  J  7 

H    <J     05 

S^o 
PH          -i 
•<  P 
g 


s 

to 

to 


« *i 

«0    CO 


^ 


°?  § 

oo  _: 

rH    " 


«i  «• 

?5  ** 


1 

1 

2 
0 


1 

1 

c 
0 


p 

ii     >*3     OC 
VJ'    C 

!"J    •^^ 
to  I-H 

3" 

Oi 

0^ 

t>»   ^     « 

3  oo"  _ 

r?    °*-   ® 

®<    «5 

'  to  of 

1 

H 

> 

s 

I 

V 

3 
'> 

d 

<«H 

rt 

a 

0 

i 

1 

0 

• 

w 

*- 
1 

c 

V 
| 

i-s 

1 

- 

Sha 


408  THE  NATIONAL  LAND  SYSTEM 

APPENDIX  VIII. 

LAND  SALES,   1815-1820. 


Steubenville    .... 

1814-15 
112,260 

.     26,554 

1816-17 
54,566 
123^96 

24,050 
62J61 

72,048 
148J81 

256,713 
S25&79 

105,393 
212J81 

325,361 

601JOS 

175,609 
S52&13 

264,823 

86,064 
405J51 

261,143 

622#86 

(Jan. 
1818-19 
14,741 
82,668 

8,829 

22JS22 

34,770 

71,630 

74,409 
166,483 

47,802 
99,077 

214,415 

428,881 

1-Dec.  31),  1820 
1819    To  July  1 
13,637        2,847 
28,879        6^69 

4,954           886 
14J014        2J092 

26,083        2,842 
63,774        5J14 

57,674        4,207 

33,574        4,549 

69J76         9,038 

142,602       11,870 
285&04      23,740 

134,388        4,281 
257  J9S        8J02 

224,401         5,848 
719£65      17428 

Wooster 
11,042         1,436 

64,932         6,360 
129£64      12,720 

Marietta    

Chillicothe    

9  57  £76 
.     57,678 

Cincinnati      

$129057 

251,012 

$529*927 

.   126,124 

Zanesville   

Vincennes    

$256,278 
.     53,236 

West  of  P  

$106,478 
2,833 

East  of  P  

9    6,666 

5,155 

$  10J10 

257,472 
$514,600 

125,903 

10,940 
22^97 

108,736 

217^72 

Jeffersonv  

Madison   Co.,   Ala.     19,266 

$38^32 


Shawneetown 


.     51,735         67,084 
$129,017      134^98 


Hunts  ville 

2,649          774,988          134,578       35,879 
W75JOS 


161,654 
S25J16 


118,934       18,107 
239,522      S6fl81 


APPENDIX  409 
APPENDIX    (Continued). 

LAND    SALES,    1815-1820. 

(Jan.  1-Dec.  31),  1820 

1814-15      1816-17         1818-19  1819  To  July  1 

Kaskaskia    31,005         78,508          124,303  60,355  5,609 

$  62J010      157,015         248,607  120,711  11,217 

Edwardsville    104,074           97,398  90,756  6,640 

$308,417         200,596  187,311  13#90 

Cahawba 

Milledgeville    174,010       1,0*6,564  782,747  239,979 

$753,849      3,764,431  2,681,585  894,185 

Detroit 32,756  14,986  2,915 

$     67J14  20,799  5,830 

To  Aug.  1 

Franklin,   Mo. 662,434  471,460  32,848 

$1,894£06  1^26,290  66,620 

St.    Louis    470,990  324,429  16,120 


410 


THE  NATIONAL  LAND  SYSTEM 


APPENDIX   IX 
LAND   SOLD,   RECEIPTS,  AND   BALANCES   UNPAID. 

NOBTHWE8T  OF   THE    OHIO. 


LANDS  SOLD 


Quantity         Price 


Ki-.cn  i1  is  BALANCES 

On  Sale       Unpaid 

Lands     For  Purchase         of  by 

Reverted        Money     Forfeitures  Purchaser 


1800  and 
1901  

398,646 
340,010 
181,068 
373,612 
619,266 
473,212 
284,180 
195,579 
143,409 
158,844 
207,017 
391,665 

1834,887 
680,020 
398,161 
772,852 
1,235,953 
1,001^358 
588,610 
423,445 
355,783 
344,256 
449,503 
849,632 

Omitted 

248,461 
220,867 
246,000 
431,030 
575,860 
850,106 
680,861 
545,078 
484,752 
610,318 
599,773 
746,897 

$2,148 
207 
222 
966 
1,102 
1,589 
7343 
3,129 
6,168 
25,373 
49,542 
47,431 

$586,426 
459,152 
1,092,390 
1,434,213 
2,094,306 
2,245,558 
2,153,306 
2,041,673 
1^912,704 
1,646,642 
1,496,372 
1,599,106 

1802  .... 

1803  

1804  

1805  

1806  

1807  

1808  

1809  

1810  

1811  

acres 
94,076 

1812  

1813  

239,981 

560,541 

123,571 

643,056 

63,262 

1,483,861 

1814  

823,264 

1,702,016 

33,649 

1,050,888 

13,950 

2,134,990 

1815  
1816  

1,092,980 
1,131,956 
1,414,952 

2,285,681 
2,464,793 
3,090,868 

42,435 
54,008 
79,287 

1,256,734 
1,294,081 
1,797,719 

7,484 
12,930 
27,733 

3,163,937 
4,334,648 
5,627,797 

1817  

To  Jan.  1 
1818  

460,889 
1,245,107 

922,908 
2,571,337 

22,491 
46,221 

538,105 
1,471,631 

4,588 
5,809 

6,017,158 
7,290,490 

To  Sept  30 
1818  

To  Sept  30 
1819  

2,064,178 

4,939,659 

153,309 

2,387,187 

25,334 

9,868,295 

12,239,816  $26,482,262     649,058  16,679,406  $306,682 


APPENDIX 


411 


APPENDIX  (Continued) 
LAND  SOLD,  RECEIPTS,  AND  BALANCES  UNPAID. 

MISSISSIPPI   AND  ALABAMA. 


LANDS  SOLD 


1807 

1808 

1809 

1810 

1811 

1812 

1813 

1814 

1815 

1816 

To  Sept.  30 

1817 

To  Dec.  31 

1817 

To  Sept.  30 

1818 

To  Sept.  30 
1819.. 


Quantity 
74,832 
17,893 
87,636 
77,036 
81,913 

144,873 

30,261 

41,273 

27,254 

490,874 

617,090 
127,330 
695,849 

2,278,046 


Price 

$149,663 

35,786 

194,872 

158,126 

164,822 

299,904 

60,659 

82,545 

54,508 

1,102,481 

1,677,903 

253,638 

3,715,753 

9,705,889 


RECEIPTS 

BALANCES 

Lands 
Reverted 

For  Purchai 
Money 

$37,750 
8,946 
60,142 
41,413 

80,476 

On  Sale 
se         of 
Forfeitures 

Unpaid 
by 
Purchaser 

$111,913 
138,753 
273,483 
390,195 
474,541 



$113 
372 
305 



5,530 

121,377 

541 

653,068 

1,608 

83,452 

144 

630,275 

2,476 

123,811 

758 

589,009 

2,616 

111,784 

537 

531,733 

95,143 

364,116 

44,007 

1,270,098 

23,613  546,494  6,748  2,401,507 

17,815  133,774  7,039  2,526,410 

53,787  1,087,799  16,624  5470,989 

137,179  2,773,723  29,207  12,132,362 


4,792,157  $17,656,549  339,766  $5,577,058     106,396 

*  WEST   OF  THE    MISSISSIPPI 

1819 1,133,425    3,036,246       74,533       833,541       17,166     2,219,872 

*  Included  in  statement  of  sales  northwest  of  the  Ohio. 
F.  L.  III.,  420. 


INDEX 

Adams,    John,    56,    182,    359.  Bailey,  David,  258. 

Agricultural      and      mechanical  Baldwin,  Abrah,  360. 

colleges,       land      grants      for,  Barlow,  Joel,  58. 

28°-  Base  lines,  described,   188,   189. 

Aigleville,    Ala.,    309.  Beale's   Rifle  Company,  259n. 

Alabama,    debtors    in,    157;    ef-  Benton,    T.    H.,    senator     from 

feet    of    relief    acts    in,    158;        Missouri.    389. 

enabling  act,  276n,  279;  grant  Black  Hawk»s  War,  258. 

to,    316;    land    offices    in,    171,  Bland,       Theodorick,       proposes 

173,    176,   177;   lands   for   edu-       land  S7stem,  19,  235,  264. 

cation     in,    279;    Indian    ces-  Board   of  Treasury,   44,  52,   66, 

sions    in,    167,    168,    171,    172,       73>  ggg. 

173;    memorials    of   Legis.   of,  Bonaparte,  Joseph,  308. 

153,    157;    speculation    in,   107,  Boudinot,  Elias,  rep.  from  New 

157,     365;     surveys     in,     190;       Jersey,  69,  75. 

Vine  and  Olive  grant  in,  307-  Bounties,    for    military    services, 

31&  see  chapter  X;  statistics,  261; 

Allen,    Robert,    rep.    from    Ten-       pians    for    satisfaction   of,    19, 

nessee,  150.  20.  in  Ordinance  of  1785,  37; 

Arkansas,  bounty  lands  in,  249,       ian(js   drawn  in   1787,  44;   re- 

255,  372;   grant  to,  317;  lands       serves  authorized,  47;  warrants 

for  education  in,  275;  surveys       pajd    by    Ohio    Company,    51, 

in,  189,  195.  57.    by    Symmes,    54,    60;    for 

Armand,   General,   22.  state    bounties    see   each   state. 

Army,  bounties  for,  see  chapter  Bouquet's  expedition  of  1764,  41. 

X;   certain   officers   propose  to  Bourbon   County,   Georgia,  356. 

found  a  new  state,  19,  21,  236,  Bribery,    of    members    of    Con- 

264-  gress   attempted,   77. 

Articles         of          Confederation,  British     posts,     relinquished     by 

Franklin's   draft,  2;  Dickinson       Jay's  treaty,  80. 

draft,     2;     amendments     pro-  Brookville,  land  office,  177. 

posed,    5;    convention    to    re-  Buck,    Daniel,    rep.    from    Ver- 

vise,    49;    protect   state    lands,       mont,  78. 

4;  no  power  to  receive  or  gov-  Bull,    John,    on    land    committee 

ern  lands,   12.  of   l7S5j  30  n. 

Ash,  George,  296.  Burton's   Lessee  v.  Williams,  et 
Auctions,   in    New   England,   23;       ait    351 

in  Ordinance   of   1785,  31,  37; 

rejected  by   Hamilton,   72;   in  Cadillac,     commandant     at     De- 

1796,  80,  82,  85;  in  1820,   145.        troit,  312. 

413 


414  INDEX 

Cahawba,    land    office    at,    173;  Clark,  Gen.  George  Rogers,  ex- 
speculations  at,  176.  pedition    of,    205,    325;    grant 
Cahokia,  202,  218,  222.  for,  9,   169,  188,  327,  339;  In- 
California,    land    grants   in,    198,       dian  grant  to,  297. 

227.  Clarke,  William,  grant  to,  301. 

Canadian  and  Nova  Scotian  ref-  Colonial  land   claims,   see   chap- 

ugees,   grant  to,  286-290;   res-       ter  I. 

ervation  for,  38,  176,  244.  Commissioners,  Court  of,  to  de- 

Canadian      Volunteers       (1812),       termine    disputed    state    boun- 

250-252.  daries,  4;  for  Mass.-N.  Y.  dis- 

Canton,   land   office,   170.  pute,  10  n;  for  Ga.-S.  C.,  355; 

Carr,   Thomas,  367.  decide  Conn.-Pa.  dispute,  lOn, 

Cass,  Lewis,  gov.  of  Mich.  Terri-       319,  323. 

tory,  on  bounty  lands,  250  n;  Commissioners,    for   confirmation 

negotiations      with      Christian       of    foreign    claims,    200,    210, 

Indians,  292.  383;  in  Northwest,  120;  south 

Caveats,  24,  27,  32.  of  Tenn.,  167;  Vincennes,  Kas- 

Certificates     of     further     credit,       kaskia,     Detroit,    see    chapter 

154.  IX. 

Certificates    of    public    debt,    re-  Commissioners,  for  Georgia  ces- 

ceivable    for    lands    in    North-       sion,  359-362. 

west,  37,  51,  95;  not  receivable   Commissioners     of    Georgia,     to 

in  Southwest,  112;  not  receiv-       examine  lands,  366. 

able  after   1806,   131.  Committee     on     Public     Lands, 

Cessions,    of    western    lands    by       standing,   126. 

the     states,     see     chapters     I,  Companies,  land,  see  Land  Com- 

XIII;  area  of,  appendix  I.  panics. 

Cherokee  Indians,  167,  168,  171,   Conecuh  Court  House,  land  of- 

345,  350n.  fice,  177. 

Chickasaw  Indians,  167,  168,  171,   Confederation,    Articles    of,    see 

331,  350  n.  Articles  of  Confederation. 

Chickasaw    meridian,    190.  Congress    of   Confederation,    ac- 

Chillicothe,    founded,    377;    land       cepts      cessions,      7;     assumes 

office,  95,  105,  176,  290.  power   over   lands,   12;   unable 

Chippewa      Indians,      45,      1615,       to    satisfy    bounties,    22;    and 

171.  foreign  titles,  202;  and  grants 

Choctaw  Indians,   167,  171.  for     education,     264;     special 

Choctaw  meridian,  190.  grants    of,    287-295;    and    the 

Christian  Indians,  grant  to,  290-       Conn,     cession,    320-323;     and 

292.  the  Va.  Reserve,  330;  and  the 

Cincinnati    land    office,     85,    95,       N.  C.  cession,  343. 

105.  Congress,      Continental,      should 

Civil  War,  no  land  bounties  for,       have  power  to  limit  states,  2; 

260.  maintains  state  claims,  4;  of- 

Claiborne,   W.   C.    C.,  rep.    from       fers  bounty  lands,  231-234. 

Tennessee,    94;    gov.    of    Miss.   Congress,  Federal,  and  the  land 

Territory,  122.  debtors,   see  chapter   VI;   and 


INDEX  415 

Congress,   Federal — Continued.  Credit — Continued 

the  credit  system,  146;  and  tension,  1809,  132;  reports  and 
foreign  titles,  198-200,  228;  acts,  1810-1820,  134-141;  sura- 
and  grants  for  education,  266,  mary  of  acts,  143;  abolished, 
276,  284;  and  special  grants,  Ml;  further  credit  under  re- 
286,  315;  and  the  Georgia  Kef  acts,  151-161;  to  Dufour, 
cession,  359;  and  pre-emption,  108,  297;  to  Vine  and  Olive 
383-388  Ass'n.,  307-313. 

Connecticut,        claims       western  Creek  Indians,  167,  172,  308. 

lands,  2,  319,  342;  first  offer,  Currency,  see  Paper   Money. 

7,  320;  dispute  with  Pennsyl-  Cutler,  ****•  Manasseh,  in  Ohio 
vania,  lOn,  320;  cedes  western  Company,  48,  49,  50,  55. 

lands,    10,    321;    school    fund,  Dana>     Edmund,     desired    land, 

10,     324;     proposes     township        31^' 

10    a»        AC   i^ivA-tt.  Deaf  and  Dumb,  grants  for  asy- 
svstem,  18,  24;  cedes  junsdic-  J 

,   —  oa.  lums    for,   280. 

tion  of  Reserve,  324. 

Connecticut  Asylum,  land   grant  Dearborn>     General,     Sec'y     of 

for,  280.  War,   242. 

Connecticut  Reserve,  6,  7,  10,  64,  Debt}   nationalj   funding  the,   73, 

102,    165,    183,    269,    270,    271,        76 

319-325,   372,   377.  Deeds,    of   cession,   see   chapters 
Constitution,   ratification   of,   55;       j?  XIII. 

as  to  power  of  Congress  over  Delaware,    opposes    state   claims, 

lands,    12,    266;    on    religions       4. 

establishment-?,    282,    302;    XT  Delaware,  Ohio,  land  office,  177. 

amend,  of,  357.  Delaware    Indians,   45,    165,    169, 
"Continental      Line,"      bounties        995. 

for,   232-244,   328n.  Demopolis,     Ala.,     309;     Female 
"Continuation'"  lands,   216,   224.        Academy,   313. 

Cook,  D.  P.,   rep.   from  Illinois,  De    Numbrun,    Lieut.    Gov.    of 

254.  Illinois  County,  206. 

Crawford,   W.    H.,    sec'y  of   the  Deputy  Surveyors,  85,  119. 

Treasury,  311.  Deserters,  from  British  army  of- 
Credit,   abolition   of,   see  chapter       fered   bounty   lands,   231,    250. 

V;  balances  unpaid,  appendix  Detroit,     land     claims     at,     see 

VTI;    introduced   in   1787,   44;       chapter  IX;  destroyed  by  fire, 

extended    for   purchases    from       213,     315;     land     office,      168; 

Symmes,    62;    opposed,    1790,       sales  at,  177;  grant  to,  315. 

69;    Hamilton's    plan,    72;    ex-  Dickinson,   John,    draft    of    Art. 

tended  in  1796,  86,  90;  exten-       of  Confederation,  2,  4. 

sion    urged,    92;    act    of    1800,  Dobbyn,  H.  W.,  seeks  lands,  68. 

95,  98,  102,  380;  modified,  1801,  Doddridge's   lessee  v.   Thompson 

107;     Gallatin     opposes,     116;       and  Wright,  335. 

extension    opposed,    126;    first  Dohrman,  A.  H.,  grant  to,  293- 

extension,    129;    system    criti-       295. 

cised,    129;    Morrow's    report  Donaldson,    Thomas,    opinion    of 

against,  132;  first  general  ex        Hamilton's   report,   72. 


416  INDEX 

Donations  of  land,  by  Ohio  Co.,  "Financier's   Plan,"   20,   234. 

56;  by  Congress,  57;  proposed,  Findley,      William,      rep.      from 

1789,    68;    in    Miss.    Territory,  Pennsylvania,   82. 

Ill;    desired,    114;    proposed,  Fire   Lands,    in    Conn.    Reserve, 

1804,      115;     not     offered     in  323. 

Louisiana,   125;   in   Northwest,  Five   per  cent   Fund,  origin  of, 

202,    203,     207,    214,    223;    to  109,  268. 

Canadian  refugees,  286-290;  to  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  363. 

Isaac  Zane,  95;   to  Lafayette,  Flint,    Royal,    seeks    lands,    52, 

300;     to    Lewis     and     Clarke,  53n;  in  Scioto  Company,  58. 

301 ;    to    earthquake    sufferers,  "  Floating  claims,"  New  Madrid, 

303-307.  306. 

Donelson,  Colonel,  367.  Florida,    land     claims     in,     198, 

Dowse,   Edward,  surveyor,  42n.  229n. 

Duer,  Col.  William,  49,  58,  59.  Forbes,       Abraham,       granted 

Dufour,    J.    J.,    grant    to,    108,  bounty  lands,  251n. 

297-299.  Foreign    titles,    confirmation    of, 

see  chapter  IX,  106;  in  Miss- 

ferS'  ^              '  issippi,      111,      166,      360;      in 

__  Northwest,  120;  delay  surveys 

Eaton,  J.  H,  senator  from  Ten-  ^  saks>  162j  199>  ^ 

nessee,  149.  Forfeitures,  in  1787,  45;  repaid, 

Education,   land   grants   for,   see  ,n    ^    of    179(J>    g6;    ,n 

chapter    XI;    19,    20,    31,    38,  act  of  1800>  95.   in   1806>  m> 

372;  in  Ohio  Co.,  51;  in  Sym-  12gn;     postponed,     1801,     129; 

mes  purchase,  54;  proposed  in  Igo9    132     1810-1820,   134-141; 

1796,  82,  86,  90;  Ohio  enabling  TeUef      measures>      1821-1832, 

act,    109;    in    Mississippi,    111;  144-161 

in   Term.,  347,  349,   354;   none  Fort  Chartres,  202,  218. 

in  Ohio  military  district,  239;  Fort   Franklin>   46. 

in    reserves    for   war   of    1812,  Fort  Harmar,  46;  treaty  of,  79, 

•248.  i  g  f 

Edwards,    Ninian,    senator    from  Fort  "  Mclntosh,    46;    treaty    of, 

Illinois,  140,  147,  148.  45>  79>   165. 

Edwardsville,  land  office,  173.  Fort   Pitt,  46 

Eel  River   Indians,   169.  Fort  gt    Pniiiip>  202. 

Embargo,  131.  Fort     Stanwix,     treaty     of,     45, 

Enabling     Acts,     Ohio,    108-110,  165 

268-271,    349;    Louisiana,    274;  Fort  steuben,  46. 

Missouri,      2T5;      Mississippi,  Fractionai  sections,  sold  individ- 

Michigan,      Arkansas,      276n;  ually,   113,  120. 

Alabama,   276n,   316;    Indiana  France>'     threatened     war     with, 

31fl-  246. 

Fairfield,  Canada,  292.  Franklin,    Benjamin,    2,    182. 

Fees,    act   of   1796,   86n;    act  of  Franklin,    state    of,    341. 

1800,     96,     96n;     petition     for  Franklin,    Missouri,    land    office, 

abolition,    113;    abolished,    121.  177. 


INDEX  417 

Frauds,     in    Louisiana    country,   Graduation   Act,  389. 

122,     124;     in    sale    of    relin-   Grayson,    William,    chairman    of 

quished   land,   156;   at   Vincen-       Committee,   1785,  30;  letter  to 

nes,    204,    209;    at    Kaskaskia,       Washington,    30;    to    Madison, 

215,  21T,  220;  at  New  Madrid,       43;  on  education,  265;  opposes 

306.  Conn,  cession,  321-323. 

French  and  Indian  War,  bounty  Green  Bay,  land  claims  at,  224. 

lands,  230.  Greene,    Gen.    Nathaniel,   bounty 

French  emigrants,  grant  to,  307-       lands   for,   344. 

313.  Greeneville    treaty,    79,    93,    165, 

French     settlers,     at     Gallipolis,       187,   209,   295,   335,   377. 

58,     59,     62;     in     Northwest,  Guide  meridians,  189. 

claims    confirmed,    see   chapter 

IX.  Hamilton,     Alexander,     on     ces- 

sions,     7;      seconds      Eland's 
Gallatin,      Albert,       rep.       from        motion,    19n,    236;    report    on 

Pennsylvania,   81-83,   91;   Sec'y       public  lands,  70-73,   267;  com- 

of  the  Treasury,  101,   110;  re-       pared    with    Gallatin's    report, 

port   on   land   system,   115-119,        115;     first     report     on     public 

380;  letter,   1806,  128;  on  for-       credit,  70. 

eign   titles,    199;    on   Canadian   Harmar,    General,  expedition   of 

refugees,    299.  1790,  79,  205. 

Gallipolis,      founded,      59,      295;    Harmony    Society,    desires    land, 

school  lands,  271.  298. 

Gardner,   Joseph,   on    land   com-    Harrison,  W.  H..  94,  209,  220. 

mittee  of  1785,  30n.  Havens,   J.    N.,   rep.   from    New 

leral  Land  Office,  established,       York,  81. 

Hazard's  western  colony,  24. 
Geographer       of       the       United   Hazen,  General,  287. 

SI  tes,  41.  Henry,    John,    on    land    commit- 

Georgia,  claims  western  lands,  2;        tee   of    1785,   30n. 

cession,    13,    166,    355-361 ;    of-    Henry,      Patrick,      governor  "  of 

fers    bounty    lands,    235;    dls-       Virginia,    326. 

pute    with    S.    C.,    355;    Yazoo   Hessians,    offered   bounty   lands, 

grants,    356-358;    other    grants       231,  233. 

of,   366-369.  Holston>    treaty   of,   345. 

Georgia  Company,  357,  363,  364,   Homestead  Law,  260,  289. 

Hopewell,  treaty  of,  345. 
Georgia     Mississippi     Company,    Houston,    John,    on    land    com- 

357,  364.  mittee   of   1785j  30n> 

Gerry,    Elbridge,    on    land    com-   Howard   County,   Missouri,   land 

mittee  of   1784,  22,  264.       .  office,   177. 

Giles,    W.    B.,    rep,    from    Vlr-   Howell,  David,  on  land  commit- 

ginia>  78.  tee  of  1784,  22,  264;  and  1785, 

Giles     County,     Tenn.,     townsite       30n. 

for,  316.  "  Hundreds,"    proposed    in    1784, 

Gnadenhutton,  291.  26. 


418  INDEX 

Huntsville,      land      office,      176;  "Indiscriminate     location,"     25, 

speculations   at,   107,    157,   176.       31,  34,  44,   375;  modified  sys- 
Huntsville  meridian,  190.  tern  proposed  by  Hamilton,  71, 

Hutchins,    Thomas,    Geographer,       73;    defended,    74;    effects    of, 

41,  196;  surveys,  41-43,  183.  75,    180;   in   Virginia   Reserve, 

Illinois,    bounty    lands    in,    243,       187,   240,  333. 

248,  249,  254,  255,  372;   grant    Interest    charges,    in    1800,    95, 

to,    316;    Indian    cessions    in,       102;  modified,  1801,  107;  1803, 

169,    172,    173;   land  claims   in       m?   1804»   119?  remitted,   151. 

confirmed,     see     chapter     IX;  Internal       improvements,       lanfl 

lands    for    education    in,    272,       grants  for,  131,  388. 

278,  279;   land   offices   in,   168,  Irish  emigrants,  308,  314. 

173;   preemption  in,  385;  sur-   Iroquois    Indians,    lands    claimed 

veys  in,  188.  ty  N"ew  York,  2;  cede  lands, 

Improvement      of     lands,      con-      **• 

ditions  for,  24,  207. 
Indiana,  act  for  sale  of  lands  in,  Jackson,  Gen.  Andrew,  367;  de- 

119-121,  168;  bounty  lands  in,       feats  the  Creeks,  172. 

243,   251;    credit    extended    in,    Jackson,    James,    360. 

129,  135;  debt  in,  157;  grants  Jackson,     Missouri,    land     office, 

to,    316;    Indian    cessions    in,       177, 

169,     172;    land     claims     con-  Jackson  County,  Ohio,  grant  for, 

firmed,   see   chapter   IX;    land       316. 

offices   in,   168,   170,   177;   land  Jay's    treaty,   with   England,  80, 

sales,  168;  lands  fdr  education       209. 

in,  272,  278;  surveys  in,  188.        Jefferson,      Thomas,      chairman 
Indians,  see  each  tribe,  interfere       committee    of    1784,    22;    did 

with    surveys,    42,    43;    aftect       not  "invent"  the  land  system, 

sales    in    1787,    45;    embarrass       27,    182;    President,    122,    360; 

land  companies,  56,  59;   treat-       embargo,    131;    and    education, 

ies     in     Northwest,     45,     165;        264;    report    on    land    claims, 

wars    in    Northwest,    79;    ces-       346. 

sions,    106;    wars    affect   sales,   Jefferson  College,  land  for,  272, 

106,    credit    system,    136,   pre-        278,   279. 

vent   location   of   bounty   war-  Jeffersonville,  land   office,   170. 

rants,  238;  prevent  settlement,  Johnson,     Henry,    senator    from 

374;     granted     bounty     lands,        Louisiana,    140. 

257;   grants  to  individuals  by,  Johnson,    R.    M.,    senator    from 

295,     296;     area     of     cessions,       Kentucky,   147,   160. 

appendix  V.  Johnson,    Robert,    surveyor,   42n. 

Indian     title,     must     be     extin-  Johnson,  Robert,  governor  of  S. 

guished    before    sales,    53,    79,       C.,  23. 

106,  149,  381 ;  extinguishment  Johnson,  W.  S.,  on  land  commit- 
of,  see  chapter  VII.,  in  Con-  tee  of  1785,  30n;  on  Conn, 
necticut  Reserve,  271,  323;  in  cession,  321. 

Tennessee,  345,  350;  in  Jouett,  C.,  Indian  agent  at  De- 
Georgia,  361,  369.  troit,  210. 


INDEX  419 

Kaskaskia,    land    claims    at,    see   Land  Sales — Continued. 
chapter    IX;    land    office,    120,       states,    88;    at    Pittsburg    and 
168.  Phila.,    92,    100;    private   sales 

Kaskaskia  Indians,  169,  206.  authorized,     95;     1800-1,     105; 

Kennedy's  western  colony,  23.  affected  by  bounty  lands,  245, 

Kentucky,  reserved  by  Virginia,       372;  amount,  by  offices,  appen- 
6,    8;    not    in    public    domain,       dix,  VI,  VII. 

105,  347;  Virginia  military  re-   Land     system,     national,     origin 
serve  in,  330;   Indian  cessions       of,    see    chapter    II;    develop- 
in,  331.  ment  of,   1789-1800,  see  chap- 
Kentucky  Abolition  Association,       ter    IV;    under    act    of    1800, 

308.  101-104;     extended     south     of 

Kentucky    Asylum,    land    grant       Ohio,    111;    extension    of,    see 

for,  281.  chapter    VII,     appendix    III; 

Kimberly,   Ephraim,   238n,   384n.       and  Westward  Movement,  see 
King,  Rufus,  on  land  committee       chapter  XIV. 

of  1785,  30n;  letter  to  Gerry,  Land  system,  New  England,  17, 

34n.  23,  25,  29,  35,  182;  advocated 

King's  Mountain,  battle  of,  257,       by    Sherman,    68;    grants    for 

259.  education,     264.    See    surveys. 

Knight,  Prof.  G.  W.,  on  grants    Land    system,    Southern,    24-25; 

for  education,  285n.  see  surveys. 

Knox,    General,    sec'y    of    War,  Lands,    western,    cession    of,    see 

242.  ,  chapter   I. 

La   Trappe,    Society    of,    desires 
Lafayette,    General,   land    grant,       lands,  299. 

244,  300.  Laussat,    M.,     French     Commis- 

Land  Companies,  Indiana,  Van-       sioner,  122. 

dalia,     Illinois,     Wabash,     16;   Lawrence       County,       Missouri, 

Ohio,      see      Ohio      Company;       ian(j  office,  177. 

Symmes,   see   Symmes;   Scioto,  Leake,     Walter,     senator     from 

see  Scioto;  Yazoo,  see  Yazoo.       Mississippi,   139. 
Land  debtors,  Congress  and  the,   Lee,    Charles,    Attorney-General, 

see  chapter  VI.  358. 

Land    office,    proposed,    67;    bill   Lee,    R.    H.,   President   of    Con- 

for  establishing,  68;  proposed       gress,  29. 

by  Hamilton,  71;   General  es-  Lefavour,  Abraham,  368. 

tablished,     136;     widely     scat-  Leitensdorfer,    J.    E.,    grant    to, 

tered,  382;  distances  between,       301. 

appendix    IV;   see    each   office   Lewis,     Meriwether,     grant     to, 

in  index.  301. 

Land   Ordinance   of   1784    (pro-  Lewistown,  battle  of,  257. 

posed),  26,  180,  236,  264,  331.  Limit   to   sales,    attempt  to   set, 
Land    Ordinance    of    1785,    see       81. 

Ordinance  of  1785.  Lincoln,  Levi,  Attorney-General, 

Land  sales,  under  the  Confeder-       360. 

ation,  see  chapter  III;  by  the   Little  Prairie,  303. 


420  INDEX 

Livingston,    Lieut-Col.    Richard,  Menissier,  Francis,  desires  land, 

grant  jLo,  290.  297. 

Livingston,  R.  R.,  on  land  com-  Meridians,     principal,      188-190; 

mittee  of  1785,  30n.  guide,     189;     convergence     of, 

Loan-office  certificates,  26,  37.  39,  195. 

Long,  Pierre,  on  land  committee  Mexican  War,  bounties  for,  255. 

of  1785,  30n.  Miami   Indians,  169,  177. 

Louphry,  Col.,  grant  to,  339n.  Michigan,       speculators       desire 

Louisiana,     settlers     invited     by  grant    of,    77;    land    office    in, 

Spanish    gov't.     of,     67;    first  12°5    Indian    cessions    in,    171; 

land     act     for,     123-125,     170,  surveys   in,   189;  bounty  lands 

384;    district    of,    170;    Indian  in>    848,    249»    2555    lands    for 

cessions    in,    172;    land    offices  education    in,    272,    278;    pre- 

in,   170,   172;   bounty   lands   in,  emption  in,  384;   desires   land, 

248;    lands    for    education    in,  318»  land  claims  in,  see  chap- 

274,    275,   278;   preemption   in,  ter  IX- 

384.  Michilimackinaw,  land  claims  at, 

Ludlow,  William,  surveys  line  of  234- 

Va.  Reserve,  334.  Military   District,  Ohio,  93,   102, 

Lutherans,  desire  land,  298.  184>   239-242,    267,   270,    372. 

Lyman,    Mr.,    rep.    from    Massa-  Militia,    bounties    for,    250,    252, 

chusetts,  78.  256-259. 

Milledge,  John,  360. 

Madison,      James,      rep.      from  Milledgeville,     land     office,     173; 

Virginia,   78;    Sec'y.   of  State,  moved  to   Cahawba,   173, 

360;    President,   249.  Mines,  reserves  in  Ord.  of  1785, 

Madison      County,      Ala.,      lanff  38;   reserved  in  bounty   lands, 

office,  171,  176.  248. 

Mansfield,  Jared,    Surveyor-Gen-  Minnesota,  surveys  in,  188. 

eral,  138,  187,  196.  Mississippi,    population    of,    105; 

Marietta,     Ohio,     founded,     55;  act    of    1803,    111;    credit    ex- 
land  office,  95,  176.  tended    in,     137;    surveys    in, 

Marshall,   John,   rep.    from    Vir-  189;    lands    for    education    in, 

ginia,  325;   Chief  Justice,  363.  272,    278,    279;    enabling    act, 

Martin,   Absalom,   surveyor,   42n.  276n;    grant   to,   316;    specula- 
Maryland,    attacks    state    claims,  tion  in,  365. 
4,  5 ;  ratifies  Arts,  of  Confed-  "  Mississippi    Stock,"   365. 
eration,    6;    influence    on    land  Missouri,    debt    in,    158;    Indian 
cessions,  6;  objects  to  bounty  cessions    in,    171;    land    offices 
lands,  234.  in,    170,    177;    sales    in,    177; 

Massachusetts,     claims      western  bounty     lands     in,     249,     255; 

lands,    2,    342;    cedes    western  372;    lands    for    education    in, 

lands,    9;    retains    unoccupied  275,  279;  grant  for  earthquake 

lands,  3,   8n,   11;   dispute  with  sufferers,   303-307;    preemption 

New  York,  lOn.  in,  385. 

Meigs,   Josiah,   Commissioner   G.  Monroe,    James,    President,    140; 

L.  O.,  138.  vetoes    grant   for   church,  281, 


INDEX  421 

Monroe,  James — Continued.  Nicholson,     J.     H.,     rep.     from 

302;    on    Connecticut    cession,  Maryland,   118. 

322;    on   payment   to   Georgia,  Nickojack,  battle  at,  257. 

365.  Niles'   Register,  account  of  sur- 

Moravian   Indians,  see  Christian  veys  in,  190-194. 

Indians.  Noble,  James,  senator   from  In- 

Morgan,     George,     seeks     lands,  diana,  148. 

53,  202.  North    Carolina,    claims   western 
Morris,    William,    surveyor,    42n.  lands,  2,   340;   cession,  8n,   13, 
Morrow,     Jeremiah,     rep.     from  343,    384;    bounty    lands,    231, 
Ohio,     report     against     credit  235,  238,  344;   grants  in  Ten- 
system,    1809,    132;    1812,    135;  nessee,  106,  273,  344-351;  mill- 
senator,  report  against  credit-  tary  reserve  in  Tennessee,  341. 
system,    1819,    139;    on    claims  Northwest,    state    claims    in,    see 
at  Kaskaskia,   219;  on  church  chapter    1.,    Indian    wars    in, 
grant,  303;  On  squatters,  373n.  79;  foreign  titles  in,  see  chap- 
Murray,     W.      V.,     rep.      from  ter  IX. 

Maryland,    78.  Nova  Scotia,   see  Canadian  ref- 
ugees. 

Natchez,    school    lands    at,    272,   Q'Flyng,     Abigail,     petition     of, 

279;  grant  to,  315.  359. 

Natchez  Colony,  24.  Ohio,  population,  105,  373n;  en- 

National    Debt,    see    Debt,    na-        abling    act,    108-110,    268-271, 

tionaL  349;    credit    extended  in,    129, 

New  England,   land   system,  see       135;   memorial   on   credit   sys- 

land  system,   New   England.          tern,  134;  debt  in,  158;  Indian 
New    England    Emigration    As-       cessions  in,  165,  169,  171;  land 

sociation,  308.  offices    in,    166,    170,    177,    382; 

New   England   Mississippi   Com-       surveys    in,    184-187;    military 

pany,   366.  district  in,  237,  239,  242;  lands 

New      Jersey,      opposes      state       for  education  in,  268-271,  277, 

claims,  4;  land  suits   in,  75.  278;  to  sell  salt  reserves,  316; 

New   Madrid,   grants    for   earth-        land     for    county    seats,    317; 

quake    sufferers    at,   303-307.  Virginia  reserve  in,  330-339. 

New     Orleans,    battle    of,    259;   Ohio  Company,  47-52,  54-57,  102, 

grant  to,  316.  183,    237,    266,    278,    281,    291, 

New    Orleans,    Island    of,    dis-       372. 

trict  east  of,  385.  Oliver,  Robert,  55. 

New  Philadelphia,  293.  Opelousas,  land  office,  172. 

New  York,  claims  western  lands,   Ordinance  of  1785,  text  in  Ap- 

2;   offers   them,   6;   cession,   8;       pendix   II,  passed,  36-38,  375; 

influence   on    cessions,    6;    dis-       surveys  and  sales  under,  41-45, 

pute  with   Massachusetts,   lOn;       163,   179,   183,  376;   first  alter- 

land  law  of  1785,  34;  bounty       ation,    42;    proposed    changes, 

lands     in,     235,     237;     grants        43;    other    alterations,    44-47; 

lands    to    Canadian    refugees,       ignored  by  Hamilton,  70;  and 

288,  289.  Act  of  1796,  86,   90;' and  Act 


INDEX 


Ordinance — Continued. 

of  1800,  97;  and  Act  of  1820, 
141;  bounty  lands,  236',  grants 
for  education,  264,  269,  284; 
lands  for  Canadian  refugees, 
288;  land  for  Christian  In- 
dians, 291 ;  and  Virginia  boun- 
ties, 331. 

Ordinance   of   178T,   49,   66,   109, 
266,  269,  274,  361. 

Oregon,  school  lands  in,  278. 

Orleans,   Territory  of,   172,   196, 
274,  278. 

Ottawa  Indians,  45,   171. 

Ovid,  New  York,  inhabitants  de- 
sire land,  299. 


Palestine,  land  office,  177. 

Paper  money,  causes  specula- 
tion, 107,  137,  157;  effect  on 
credit  system,  130,  136. 

Parker,  Alexander,  surveyor, 
42n. 

Parker,  Joseph,  seeks  land,  53. 

Parsons,  Gen.  S.  H.,  in  Ohio 
Company,  48,  49. 

Pearl  River,  land  offices  East 
and  West  of,  167. 

Pennsylvania,  retains  unoccu- 
pied lands,  8n;  dispute  with 
Connecticut,  lOn,  320;  pur- 
chases "triangle,"  64;  offers 
bounty  lands,  235,  237. 

Peoria,  land  claims  at,  217,  222. 

Piankishaw  Indians,  169,  205, 
297. 

Pickering,  Timothy,  influence  on 
Ordinance  of  1785,  38-39; 
Sec'y.  of  State,  359. 

Piqua,  land  office,  177. 

Pittsburg,  42;  land  sales  at,  85, 
92,  97,  100. 

Plattsburg,  battle  of,  257. 

Porterfield,  Col.  Charles,  bounty 
lands  for,  340n. 

Post  Vincennes,  47;  see  Vin- 
cennes. 


Potawatomi  Indians,  165,  171. 

Prairie  du  Chien,  land  claims 
at,  224. 

Prairie  du  Pont,  207,  218. 

Prairie  du   Rocher,  202,  218. 

Preemption,  of  Scioto  Co.,  59; 
of  purchasers  from  Symmes, 
62,  99,  107,  120,  384;  proposed 
for  squatters,  67;  bill,  1789, 
68;  1791,  76,  90;  sought  in 
1785,  375;  in  1800,  94,  97; 
granted  builders  of  mills,  97, 
98,  120;  sought  in  Mississippi, 
111;  opposed  by  Gallatin,  11T; 
not  offered  in  Louisiana,  125; 
proposed  in  1820,  140;  of  for- 
feited and  relinquished  land, 
155-159;  in  Michigan,  216,  384; 
in  Illinois,  221,  385;  in  lands 
of  Christian  Indians,  293;  to 
Ebenezar  Zane,  295;  in  Vine 
and  Olive  grant,  312;  of 
county  seats,  317;  develop- 
ment of,  384-386. 

Price  of  lands,  in  1785,  37,  376; 
Ohio  Company,  51 ;  Symmes, 
54;  Hamilton  suggests  .30  an 
acre,  72;  debate  on,  1791,  75; 
House  fixes  .25  an  acre,  1791, 
76;  Act  of  1796,  82,  85,  88, 
92,  378;  considered  high,  92; 
Act  of  1800,  95,  102-104;  cash 
price  reduced,  1801,  107;  Gal- 
latin urges  reduction,  116;  in 
1804,  121;  $1.00  an  acre  pro- 
posed, 135;  $1.25,  137;  $1.50, 
139;  reduced  to  $1.25,  141. 

Principal  meridans,  described, 
188-190. 

Private  land  claims,  see  foreign 
titles. 

Private  sales,  act  of  1800,  98. 

Proclamation  of  1763,  cited 
against  state  claims,  3,  8n, 
341,  358;  bounty  land  grants, 
230,  247. 

Public  domain,  origin  of,  see 
chapter  I. 


INDEX  423 

Putnam,  Rufus,  urges  army  Revenue,  lands  considered  a 
plan,  21;  founds  Ohio  Co.,  48,  source  of,  13,  22,  32,  70,  74, 
54,  55;  surveyor-general,  187,  80,  89,  126,  141,  144,  160,  379. 
196  j  urges  use  of  magnetic  Revolutionary  War,  bounties, 
meridian,  195.  231-244,  257. 

Rhea,   John,   rep.    from   Tennes- 
Quebec   Act,   cited  against  state       see>   123»  124. 
claims,  3,  321,  326.  Rhode      Island,      opposes      state 

claims,  4. 

Roberts,  Charles,  surveys  line  of 
Randal    Mr     77.  Va.  Reserve,  334. 


e126   3 

gmia,  126,  363,  364.  Ruggles,       Benjamin,       senator 

Ranges,    origin,    37;    see    Seven       JJJJ  QhiOj  ^ 

Ranges.  Rutherford,    Robert,    rep.    from 

Read,  Jacob,  on  land  committee       Virginia    82    89 

Receiver  of  Moneys,  act  of  1796, 

86;  act  of  1800,  95;  additional  Sac  and  Fox  Indians,  169. 

commission,  120.  St.  Clair,  Gen.  Arthur,  50;  gov- 

Recorder    of    Land    Titles,    170,  ernor  of  N.  W.  Terr.,  60,  295; 

304.  expedition  of,  79;  and  foreign 

Register,  of  land  offices,  act  of  titles,     203,     208;     and    Conn. 

1800,    95;    additional    commis-  Reserve,  324. 

sion,    120.  St.  Helena,  meridian,  190. 

Reily,  John,  grant  to,  368.  St.     Ildefonso,    treaty    of,     123, 

Relief,    for    forfeitures    in    1787,  125. 

45n;  first  act,  1806,  129;   acts  St.  Louis,  land  office,  177. 

from    1809-1820,    134-141,   380;  St.    Stephen's,    Ala.,    land    office, 

for    debtors,     1821-1832,     144-  167.      (East  of   Pearl   River.) 

161;    summary    of    acts,    143,  St.   Stephen's  meridian,  190. 

161.  Salem,     Miss.,     proposed     grant 

Religious   purposes,   land   grants  for  church  at,  281,  302. 

for,    24,   30,   31,    51,   264,   266,  Salem,   Ohio,  291. 

281,  302.  Sales,  see  land  sales. 

Relinquishment     of     land,     sug-  Salt  springs,  to  be  reserved,  17, 

gested     by     Ohio     lesislature,  85;    granted    Ohio,    109;    Ohio 

134;    proposed    in    1820,    139;  may     sell,     316;     reserved     in 

•  act    of    1821,    147-152;    act   of  bounty  lands,  239-248. 

1824,   154.  Sargent,  Winthrop,  in  Ohio  Co., 

Reserves,  Congressional,  in  Ord.  50;  secretary  of  N.  W.  Terr., 

of     1785,     38;     in     Ohio     Co's  204,  205,  208. 

grant,    51;    in    Symmes    pur-  Sauk  Indians,  165. 

chase,  54;  in  1796,  85;  in  1800,  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  land  claims  at, 

97;    sale    urged,    113,    118;    to  225n. 

be   sold,    120;    in    Indian    ces-  Scale  of   depreciation,   26,  37. 

sions,        176;        military  —  see  Schoenbrun,  Ohio,  291. 

bounty  lands.  Scioto    Company,    50,    52,    58-59. 


424  INDEX 

Scott,  Thomas,  rep.  from  Penn-  South    Carolina    claims    western 

sylvania,  67,   68,  69,   74,   75.  land,   2,   8n;   cession,    12,   356; 

Scrip,    for    forfeited   lands,    155,  dispute   with   Georgia,  356. 

157;     for     bounty     warrants  South     Carolina     Yazoo     Com- 

243,  254,  255;  for  Va.  bounty  pany,  356. 

warrants,  336-339.  Spanish    government    offers    fav- 

Section,  in  debates  of  1785,  37n;  orable     terms     to     settlers     in 

act    of    1796,    85;    difficult    to  La.,  68;  grants,  122. 

locate,  92.  Special  grants,  see  chapter  XII. 

Sedgwick,    Theodore,    rep.    from  Speculators,   31,    72,    77,    83,    87, 

Massachusetts,  69,  75.  107,    113,    129,    134,    138,    141, 

Settlement,   conditions   of,   to  be  149,    150    157,    199,    220,    226, 

affixed  to  grants,  proposed  in  229,  244,  245,  254. 

1796,  82,  90.  Squatters,     163,     199,     226,     227, 

Seven    Ranges,    origin,    37;    sur-  373n,    386;    in    Northwest,    28, 

veys,    41-43,    183,    376;    to    be  67,    77,    376;    driven    out,    46, 

sold,  75,  76;  sales,  44,  92,  100,  374;  severe  act  for  Louisiana, 

378.  against,   123;  preemption  pro- 

Sevier,  John,  367.  posed  for,  140,  384-386. 

Shawnee  Indians,  46,  296.  "  Stay   laws,"    132. 

Shawneetown,     111.,     land     office,  Stephensburg     Academy,      seeks 

173.  land,  282. 

Sherman,    Isaac,    surveyor,    42n.  Steuben,    Baron,    bounty    lands, 

Sherman,  Roger,  rep.  from  Con-  329. 

necticut,   68,  321.  Steubenville,  land  office,  95,  102, 

Simpson,    James,    surveyor,    42n  166. 

Sinking  fund,  land  proceeds  ap-  Stewart,      Archibald,      on      land 

plied  to,  74.  committee  of  1785,  30n. 

Sitgreaves,    Samuel,    360.  "  Sufferers'    Lands,"    in    Connec- 

"Six  Nations,"  45.  ticut    Reserve,   323. 

Size  of  tracts,  plan  of  1784,  26;  Supreme  Court,  on  power  of 
Ordinance  of  1785,  35,  37;  Congress  over  lands,  12;  on 
small  tracts  proposed,  1789,  title  in  Va.  Reserve,  335;  on 
67;  Hamilton's  plan,  71;  Act  N.  C.  grants  in  Tenn.,  351; 
of  1796,  81,  84,  85,  88,  378;  on  Yazoo  claims,  363. 
reduction  urged,  94;  Act  of  Surveys,  see  chapter  VIII;  sta- 
1800,  95,  98,-  379;  in  South-  tistics  in  Appendix  III;  in 
west,  1803,  111;  petition  for  New  England,  23,  25;  in 
reduction,  1803,  113;  Gallatin  South,  24,  26,  352n;  1784,  26; 
urges  reduction,  117;  quarter  in  1785,  30,  31,  37;  1785-7, 
sections,  119,  121;  80  acres  41-43,  165,  183;  Ohio  Corn- 
proposed,  135,  137,  139 ;  some  pany,  51 ;  cost  criticized,  67 ; 
80  acres  offered,  138;  80  acre  defended,  68;  Hamilton's 
tracts,  141.  plan,  71;  Act  of  1796,  80,  85, 

Sloo,    Thomas,    on    New    Madrid  88;  firmly  established,  90,378; 

frauds,  307.  apropriations   for,   91,    106;   in 

Smith,  William,  rep.  from  South  1798,   93;  must   precede  sales, 

Carolina,  78,  80.  106,  162;  extended  over  Louis- 


INDEX  425 

Surveys — Continued.  "Township     planting,"     23,    29, 

iana,  125,  170;  quarter  sections  30,  33,  35,  40,  68,  87,  89,  265, 
not  surveyed,  138;  of  military  267,  297,  376. 
districts,  239,  248;  of  Va.  Townships,  proposed  by  Pelatiah 
bounty  warrants,  330,  333;  of  Webster,  16;  by  Congress,!  6n; 
Va.  Reserve,  334-335 ;  and  the  by  Connecticut,  18 ;  by  a  corn- 
settlers,  375,  378,  381,  387.  mittee,  18;  by  Mr.  Bland,  20; 

Surveyor,  south  of  Tennessee,  by  soldiers,  21;  New  England 
125,  167,  196;  for  Illinois  and  system,  23-24;  in  1785,  30;  ar- 
Missouri,  Northern  Mississ-  guments  for,  31 ;  Washing- 
ippi,  Alabama,  Louisiana,  196.  ton's  opinion  of,  33;  in  Ord. 

Surveyor  General,  proposed,  76;  of  1785,  37;  proposed  by  Pick- 
Act  of  1796,  85;  powers  ex-  ering,  38;  Act  of  1796,  80,  85; 
tended,  118,  170,  196.  in  military  district,  239. 

Swiss   emigrants,  308,  314.  Treasury,   Board  of,  44,  47,  52, 

Symmes,   John   Cleve,   purchases       53,  66. 
land,    52,   54,    60-62,    102,    107,  Treaty  of  Paris,  201. 
186,    237,    266,    267,    271,    278,  Tripoli,  War  with,  301. 
281,  372,  384.  Tupper,      Benjamin,      surveyor, 

42n;   founder  of  Ohio  Co.,  48. 
Turner,  F.  J.,  quoted,  37n,  104. 

Taxation,    public    lands    exempt  Tuscaloosa,  land  office,  177. 
from,   109,   110,  268,  270,   273; 

bounty  lands  in  Ohio  not  ex-  United  States  v.  Gratiot,  12. 
empt  from,  245.  Universities,    land    for,    in    Ohio 

Tenants  at  will,  settlers  can  Co.,  51;  desired  by  Symmes, 
obtain  permission,  131.  54;  granted,  60;  proposed  in 

Tennessee,    105;    lands    for   edu-       1796,    82,    86;    for    grants    see 
cation     in,     272-3,     347,     354;       chapter  XI. 
public   lands   in,   345-354,   371,  Upper  Mississippi  Co.,  357,  364. 
384;  admission  of,  346;  Indian 
title  in,  350n;  sells  lands,  353.   Vandalia,  land  office,  177. 

Tennessee  Company,  356,  357,  Vincennes,  9;  land  claims  at, 
364,  367.  see  chapter  IX;  land  office, 

Terre   Haute,  land  office,   177.  120,    168;    Indian    cession    at, 

Territories,  See  Northwest,  169,  187;  land1  attachjed1  to, 
Southwest,  Mississippi,  In-  169. 

diana,  Illinois,  Orleans,  Louis-   Vincennes        University,        land 
iana,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Ala-       revenue   for,   280,   317. 
bama,    Michigan,    Florida.  Vine  and  Olive,  Society  for  the 

Territory  South  of  the  Ohio,  Cultivation  of,  grant  to,  307- 
343.  313. 

Texas,  never  part  of  public  do-  Virginia,  claims  western  lands, 
main,  227.  2,  325;  retains  unoccupied 

Thomas,  Jesse  B.,  senator  from  lands,  3,  8n,  11;  urged  to 
Illinois,  148,  152.  cease  grants,  6;  first  offer,  6; 

Todd,  John,  206.  reserves   Kentucky,  6;  cession, 

"Tomahawk   right,"   46,   375.  8,    265,    327;    land    system    of 


426  INDEX 

Virginia — Continued.  Western  posts,  British  withdraw 

1779,    24,    29;    protects    rights  from,  80,  209. 

of    French    settlers,    201,    327;  West    Florida,   bounty   lands   In, 

court  in  Northwest,  206,   209;  231;    refugees,    289;    province, 

bounty    lands    in,    209;    offers  358,  360. 

bounty    lands,    235,    328;    mill-  Westward    movement,    see    chap- 

tary    warrants,    242;    military  ter  XIV;   36,   105-107. 

reserve      in      Kentucky,      238,  Whitney,  Mr.,  attempts  to  bribe 

330;    lands     granted    on     Va.  Congressmen,    77. 

warrants,  339.  Wilkinson,    General,    122. 

Virginia     Military     Reserve,     9,  Williams,    Elie,   384n. 

102,    184,    237,    240,    267,    270,  Williams,  John,   rep.   from   New 

325-339,   372.  York,  82. 

Virginia  Yazoo  Company,  356.  Williamson,  Hugh,  on  land  com- 
mittees of  1784  and  1785,  22, 
SOn;  rep.  from  North  Caro- 

Walker,    J.    W.,    senator    from  jjna>   75. 

Alabama,   139,  148,  150.  Vflrt,     William,     Attorney-Gen- 
War     of     1812,     131,     136,     137;  erai,   306. 

bounty    lands,    188,    246-253.  Wisconsin,    surveys    in,    188. 

War    Office,    destroyed    in    1801,  Wolcott,    Oliver,    Secy,    of    the 

241.  Treasury,  91,   359. 

Washington,  George,  urges  army  Worthington,     Thomas,     senator 

plan,  21;    describes   conditions  from  Ohio,  112,  135. 

in    West,    28;    criticizes    land  Wright,    Governor,    of    Georgia, 

ordinance,  33,  359. 

Washington,    Miss.,    land    office,  Wyandot    Indians,   45,    165,    171, 

(west  of  Pearl  River)    167.  295. 

Washington    meridian,    189.  Wyoming    county,    Pennsylvania, 

Water    courses,    surveys    of,    81,  10,    318;    township    system    in, 

87;    should    have   been   divided  24. 

in  West,  88,  197. 

Wayne,    "Mad"     Anthony,    de-  Yazoo  land  claims,  13,  112,  167, 

feats   Indians,   79,    165,  377.  356-366. 
Wea  Indians,  169. 

Webster,        Pelatiah,       proposes  Zane,       Ebenezer,       preemption, 

land    system,    16-17.  238n,  295,  384n. 

Western      lands,      claimed      by  Zane,   Isaac,  grant  to,  295. 

states,    see    chapter   I.  Zanesville,    land   office,    166,   293. 


A     000  708  536     8 


